The combination of extending a business owner's religious beliefs to a for-profit company and then using those corporate rights to discriminate against employees and customers who do not adhere to that religion could have implications far beyond the Affordable Care Act.
The wanted child, the planned family. Can anybody argue that the wanted child and the planned family are not infinitely better off for everyone: child, family and society in general?So why are we fighting these battles?
Religious freedom as we have known it stands in the balance this week as the SCOTUS prepares to hear arguments in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. Ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby will fundamentally alter a definition that has stood for more than two centuries.
Wrapping this attempt to create a privileged legal category for corporate entities in the cloak of religious freedom demeans that freedom and those who cherish it.
Religious liberty is one of the most important rights we have as Americans, and people of faith, such as my college teacher Martin Luther King Jr., have been instrumental in building a more perfect union. But as history all-too-often repeats itself, we cannot ignore that slavery, Jim Crow laws, and denial of women's suffrage were all once justified on religious grounds.
While Hobby Lobby opposes offering contraceptive coverage, it does sell three types of knitting needles. This is worth noting because, in the not-so-distant past, women who became pregnant and didn't have access to legal abortion used a variety of objects, including knitting needles.
You are going to claim to be pro-life but ignore infant mortality? And maternal mortality? You are going to claim to be confused and worried about the fertilized egg, and the implantation, and the uterine wall, but ignore the intimate partner violence that accompanies unintended pregnancy?
Did you know that the United States, which was founded on the principle of religious freedom, has now become a bastion of religious persecution? It's true -- at least according to couple of cases the Supreme Court will address next week.
In my first job in 1976, I helped college students advocate for the delivery of free birth control on their campuses. I could not have imagined then that almost four decades later, I'd once again need to be working on access to birth control methods.
Women everywhere are taking the pill for longer or shorter periods of their lives, and we are all told about stroke and blood clots as a potential side effect. But we all think that this will never happen to me. And now it happened to me!
The fact that a fetus is inside of Jane does not mean that Jane is morally responsible for the fetus. If she has become pregnant through rape or contraception failure, she has made no promise to the fetus, and so abortion would not be promise-breaking. Abortion is not wrong in either case.
As confirmed by a recent international poll of 12,000 Catholics in 12 countries, many Catholics do not embrace the church's teachings on family planning. Many, in fact, hope that Pope Francis will relax, if not reverse, the church's longstanding opposition to the use of modern contraceptives.
The cost of offering family planning coverage to employees accounts for less than one percent of total employee coverage costs. These costs are easily offset by savings to the employer due to averted unplanned births.
The ability to control whether and when to have a child are key to the physical, social and economic health of women and families, and access to legal, safe and affordable birth control and abortion are essential to guarantee that ability.
What does anti-LGBT legislation in Arizona and Kansas have to do with a pair of Supreme Court cases out of Oklahoma and Pennsylvania challenging the Affordable Care Act? Quite a lot.