It's a dark day in American History. A day when all the non-Christians stood slack-jawed and shocked, amazed that now, their employer could dictate their lives beyond work based on some idea that their moral authority is better.
This is deeply troubling territory. Are we going to say that the government has the authority to tell religious individuals or groups that their beliefs about the significance of an action or subject are simply wrong?
Was the court so overly-focused on the potential indirect violation of religious freedoms of one set of Americans that they forgot to consider the actual religious freedoms of millions of others?
One hopes for fresh approaches after the bishops have "consulted the faithful" in matters of doctrine and practice. No one will envy them in their efforts to revisit -- or revise? -- the Church's teachings.
So while a business corporation can't go to church, fast on Yom Kippur, or travel to Mecca for Ramadan, it can still go to court and, on the basis of religious freedom, demand to be exempted from the law that applies to everyone else. Today, women are the victim. Tomorrow, it could be LGBT people. Indeed, after Hobby Lobby, every person is at risk. Everyone, that is, except the corporate person, my friend.
On this final day of the term, the Supreme Court will be handing down a decision with potentially broad implications not only for the rights of women and workers, but also for corporate personhood and religious liberty.
The World Bank, which for decades has been criticized has overly focused on the construction of dams and other infrastructures as the cure for poverty, is turning its focus to the real engine of economic progress in the developing world: girls and women.
Fatherhood is a big business these days, but it's missing an important piece.
These stats raise questions about everything from sex education and the correct use of contraception to reproductive rights and population problems.
Sadly, while many Catholics today would find it preposterous that anyone affiliated with the church could support abortion rights, prominent Catholics once addressed questions about the morality and legality of abortion in ways that were beneficial not just to Catholics but to society as a whole.
The media has mischaracterized the case, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, either as an attack on the Affordable Care Act or as a threat to women's access to contraceptives. The media misses the real point.
Social media has certainly helped create a buzz around the scented, flavored and special feature condoms. In fact, the idea for caipirinha condoms came from a suggestion posted by a follower on Facebook.
Young people use mobile phones and social media in order to communicate and obtain information. They also use it to meet and date other young people, and sometimes to "hook up" for casual sex. For those of us tasked with influencing the health behavior of young people, the challenges are clear.
How will partners share their paychecks? Divide household chores? Do they want children? If they do, when should they have kids and who will take care of them? How will they keep their independence as individuals?
Our message is simple. People should have the right to decide -- who they live with; what happens to their bodies; if, when, and how many children to have -- the right to determine their futures.
Since when is defending more than half of the world's population from violence, poverty and disease a "soft" issue? Since when is helping women achieve personal bodily autonomy a "nice-to-have?"