Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision establishing a woman's right to an abortion, was issued 41 years ago. Despite consistent public opinion to the contrary, conservatives and the religious right have patiently and relentlessly campaigned against it for decades. And recently, their efforts are finding some success.
My wife, Elenor, and I are among the plaintiffs in one of Utah's two marriage equality lawsuits ping-ponging its way up the judicial system. Our case is seeking the State's recognition of the roughly 1,300 couples who married this last winter.
Just as cell phones are different from ordinary physical objects, the Internet is dramatically different from earlier speech mediums. And the Court should acknowledge those differences in determining the scope of First Amendment protection for speech.
The nine justices of the SCOTUS are now in recess, leaving the rest of us the summer in which to reflect upon and digest their latest set of rulings. Because it is likely that both judgments will have long-term adverse consequences for progressive causes, a moment of reflection on that second judgment is well in order.
All of these works have enriched my life, and invite rereading, and I commend them to those who have not yet experienced Ed's help in shaping their thinking and the enjoyment that inevitably comes from reading his work.
New York State has long been a leader in advancing women's equality, stretching back to the Seneca Falls Convention 166 years ago this weekend. Sadly, as we mark this important anniversary, hard-won victories by the women's rights movement are being threatened by a radical right wing that seeks to roll back the progress we've made.
The SCOTUS is the nation's highest court. The recent 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding the University of Texas at Austin's use of racial preferences in its admissions program indicates that the two judges in the majority have forgotten this basic tenet of American law.
The Republicans believe that suing Obama will excite and turn out their base voters, and they're betting that this benefit will be larger than any political blowback. Whether they're right in this political calculation or not remains to be seen. But what is undeniable is that, so far, this lawsuit is nothing short of laughable.
The highly politicized pro-choice/anti-choice dispute is usually fought on the battleground of religion, though not religions agree on it. It involves complex moral and personal questions that are framed by some religions as theological.
Republicans have been saying that the "war on women" Democrats accuse them of waging is a fake issue. Really? If it's not a war, it's one hell of a frontal assault. We'll see if women remember in November.
Mocking Christians for living in the past doesn't just alienate Christians; it alienates moderates, independents and future millennial voters. Trying to defame and decry social liberalism backfired for conservatives, so what's to stop the same tactics from backfiring on us?