contraception

It’s still too soon to say social conservatives are finished.

On October 3, researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine published a study with profound implications for policy making in the United States. Declaring himself “very surprised” at the results, Dr. Peipert requested expedient publication of the study, noting its relevance to the upcoming election.

Obama’s economic framing throws him off religious freedom track.

On the vice-presidential debate.

The latest lawsuit against insurance coverage for contraception.

This is a confusing video.

Of course, in today’s pussy-footing, self-censoring public talk about religion, we never ask how Isabella feels about being the occasion for edifying “sacrifice” by the Santorums? It is fine for Rick Santorum to tell us how such sacrifice has deepened his faith, strengthened the bonds uniting their family, and so on. Good for him. Moreover, Santorum would want no pity from me. He identifies with the uplifting narrative of sacrificing for the sake of others, protecting the weak, championing “life,” building character by overcoming adversity, seeing blessing where others see only curses, and so on. But I find all this attention to the suffering and sacrifice of Rick Santorum more than a little self-centered—a kind of spiritual egoism.

Making access to birth control a national issue helps Obama.

On sacrament-denial and slut-shaming: why Barbara Johnson is a Catholic hero.

But the demand for hierarchy has a larger impact on politics. In Bill Clinton’s often-quoted words: “When times are uncertain, the American people would rather have a leader who is wrong but strong than one who is right but weak.” Just as the father must rule to keep the home in order, and the Father in Heaven must be obeyed to keep the universe in order, so the “great white father” in the White House must have firm control to keep order in the political realm.