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.
For women in El Salvador, the prescription for abstinence either before or during marriage is an impractical one, perhaps a naïve wish.
Awkward. That's as good a word as any to describe the teen years. For most, it's just a passing phase. But for millions of young women it can be a life-altering and potentially dangerous time.
On this International Women's Day, as we celebrate the achievements of women around the world, we must remember that without control over their own bodies and without choices about if, when, and how often to have children, the scope and breadth of women's ambitions is ultimately, and irrevocably, limited.
I think what DKT is doing right now is to put into action a practical and realistic response to Zika while others are arguing about ideology. It seems that the Pope might welcome DKT's assistance, as this is quickly becoming a worldwide fight against the virus.
Going forward, Christians committed to religious liberty have two options: Continue fighting the culture war like Scalia did for the last few decades, or work to maintain religious liberties while not fighting, or at least staying neutral, during efforts to expand civil liberties.
The last time I checked, no one in the U.S. is being punished for what they believe or for expressing that belief. So what's the fuss about? It's not a concern that people can't express their own beliefs. No, it seems to be a concern that people will not have the license to impose their beliefs on others.
I do think the Pope's message was progressive, even for an American audience. As a result, he deserves any accolades he receives and none of the internal criticism because for the first time, the Catholic Church is actually respecting a woman's right to make broader decisions about her own body.