The current, senseless uproar has revealed a profound lack of understanding about contraception and how it actually works for real women. Most unsettling is that some of these men are opining about, and in some cases legislating for, changes that would harm women's health.
Maybe we should hold a hearing on prostate health and invite a panel of all women to testify why they're morally opposed to treating it. You see how ridiculous it sounds when the shoe's on the other foot?
How many more parties are we willing to invite into the therapeutic conversations we have with our health care professionals? If a CEO of a major company is an anti-vaccine activist, can she refuse to let her company's health plan cover routine immunizations for children, as a matter of conscience?
This type of treatment toward women's health is something you might have expected 50 years ago, but not today. Women have been making progress, but this reminds us that there is much work that needs to be done.
Who is more electable -- Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney? How are voters evaluating the economy, and whom do they hold responsible? And how have voters reacted to President Obama's recent decision around insurance coverage for contraception?
We as a society have become so polarized of late, the belief in a higher power has become a caricature, used to label vast groups of actually quite diverse peoples for the purpose of sweeping, often ignorant rhetoric and ideological cable network warfare.
In recent weeks, the nation has talked more about contraception than at any other time during my 58 years of life. Many Republican office holders and outspoken Catholic bishops call the discussion one of religious liberty. For me, it is a matter of whom I trust.
With mounting signs that the economy is getting some traction, boiling populist rage is dialing down to a grumbling simmer. This raises the possibility of the GOP nightmare scenario: voters going into the election in a reasonably upbeat mood.
It is right to honor the religious objections of faith-based employers, but it is also right to ask why we retain a system where the health coverage employees receive may be limited by those objections.