I'm working late at the restaurant. Brunch was more brutal than usual and my friend Mark and I are stuck doing paperwork well into the dinner hour....
Burdensome and unworkable is the best description of the plan proposed by a group of religious nonprofit organizations and institutions to interfere with the ability of women in their health plans to access birth control, and undermine the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate.
You hope that the weakening of journalism doesn't translate into politicians thinking they can flip flop to their hearts content, without being asked ...
After convening two assemblies, or synods, of bishops to re-examine the challenges facing modern families, Pope Francis has released a 256-page aposto...
In a vote Thursday, Colorado Senate rejected an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Tim Neville (R-Littleton) and Laura Woods (R-Westminster) that would have deleted funding for a state-run program credited with decreasing the teen pregnancies and abortions by over 35 percent.
Republicans never think it's their problem when women have babies they can't afford to take care of. When women drop out of high school or college to be mothers, starkly lowering their odds of rising out of poverty. I always wonder, where's the Grand Old Party then?
These rights are too important, and too precious, to put in the hands of a justice who seems more wedded to extreme views than to truly protecting our most precious constitutional rights. Justice Rebecca Bradley needs to resign from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Imagine if your boss rifled through your purse to see if you were taking the pill. It may sound extreme, but that is what a Supreme Court case heard this session is going to decide: whether or not your employer has the right to interfere with your personal life when it comes to reproductive health.
Our government shouldn't give a religious organization millions of dollars if it refused to provide access to reproductive health care, especially when it promised it wouldn't do so. Alas, the government has broken its promise, and that broken promise could harm trafficking victims.
On March 23rd the oral arguments for the Zubik v. Burwell case were heard by the Supreme Court. The case involves the "accommodation" that was develop...
Last week's oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, the consolidated cases about the application of the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate to religious non-profits, ended with a zinger.
How anyone can argue with a straight face that simply filing a few words of objection to gain exemption from employee contraception violates any group's freedom of religion beggars the imagination.
For me, an ordained United Methodist minister and occasional theology professor and preacher, I cannot help but think first of the women who struggle every day to keep themselves and their families healthy in lean financial times. The women for whom an unplanned pregnancy could mean a lost job, physical risk or devastating financial expense.
Insurance coverage for contraception should not be determined by where a woman works or goes to school. It's shortsighted and wrong for some employers to use their religious beliefs to deny women the vital care they need to make the best decisions for themselves and their loved ones.
Once again, the contraception benefit in the ACA is before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. What's at stake this time is every bit as critical as what was at stake in Hobby Lobby.
Denying women health insurance coverage for family planning services effectively translates to coercive childbearing, and disproportionately hurts low-income women and their children.