The idea that it would be more practical to arm every woman than to teach men about rape is depressing -- and it's insulting to men. It's an extreme manifestation of the classic "boys will be boys" mentality -- and everyone but the "boys" are responsible.
I am struck by how art and politics seem to have traded places in Missouri. The documentary After Tiller represents everything that is messy and complicated about the world, while politics here seem to exist in a fantasy world.
The more I sit and consider what the Roe v. Wade decision means at 40 years, the more I am sure that it actually means the same thing now as it did then. The question isn't what does Roe mean at 40. The question is who is the new Roe?
If scholars are serious about producing research that attempts to influence policy change for all families, we cannot continue to "blame the victim." Instead, research must account for the multiple social disparities that both produce and inadvertently sustain all types of families.
We have a choice. We can repeat history and see this generation as a list of names to solicit for donations and pad listervs or we can choose to seize this new base of people of invest in -- and engage with -- in building a proactive movement and progressive legislative agenda.
I keep waiting for a candidate to actually talk about the lifesaving significance of safe, legal, accessible abortion. But what I hear instead are scripted responses that completely and carefully ignore the messy reality of women's lives.
If Proposed Initiative 46 passes, men who rape women in Colorado will be secure in the knowledge that their efforts to humiliate and degrade those women will be backed up and reinforced by state action forcing those women to go to term -- whether they want to or not.
I've been pondering this teaching of the Apostle Paul while considering Mitt Romney's choice of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate: "Love works no ill to the neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
The Supreme Court affirmation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a moral victory -- and a victory for sexual and reproductive health and rights. As a religious leader, I believe that access to health care is a fulfillment of the Biblical mandate to take care of all of our neighbors.
Every 90 seconds, somewhere in the world, a woman dies from a pregnancy-related complication. This isn't just a "third world" problem. The United States currently ranks 50th in the world for maternal health. It is safer to give birth in Bosnia or Kuwait than in California.
The Liberty Counsel has established that the "pro-life" position is "pro-punishment," not just for doctors who perform abortions, but also for pregnant women who have no intention of ending their pregnancies and go to term.
What I am not hearing anyone say loudly and clearly in this Rosen/Romney snafu is that women's ability -- not desire or choice -- to take part in the economy is based on her freedom to make reproductive decisions.
While people in Mississippi were considering Proposition 26 and deciding whether fertilized eggs and embryos would be treated as entirely separate legal persons, a prosecutor and courts were addressing the same question behind the scenes, where voters have no role or voice.
Turning the clock back includes shaming women for their sexuality and punishing them for terminating a pregnancy (which is still legal, by the way). This brings us to one of the more degrading tactics up the radical-right sleeve: mandatory ultrasound laws.
Would so many individuals -- 'Racers for the Cure' and celebrities alike -- rise up in protest? My guess is no, they would not -- and this is the power of the stigma around abortion. When access to health care is limited by money or geography, we cannot afford to limit it further with politics.
It's not unusual to hear comments like, "Why are you working to protect reproductive rights when we have our own issues to deal with?" or, "Marriage equality has nothing to do with abortion rights. Our two movements are different." Think again.