· · · · · 

Self-Certification and the Contraceptive Coverage Rule: What Does it Mean for an Institution to “Hold Itself Out as Religious?”

Potential employees, students, and patients--as well as taxpayers generally--deserve to know who they are dealing with.

Some religiously-affiliated institutions characterize themselves as “secular” when recruiting or seeking public funding but “church-controlled” when demanding exemptions from the law, such as the birth control benefit. Potential employees, students, and patients—as well as taxpayers generally—deserve to know who they are dealing with.

· · · · · 

Eisenstadt v. Baird: The 41st Anniversary of Legal Contraception for Single People

As recently as 1972, you could go to jail for giving contraception to an unmarried person. And William Baird did. Eight times. In five different states.

On the eve of the anniversary, RH Reality Check spoke with William Baird, from the landmark Eisenstadt v. Baird case, about his reproductive health efforts past and present.

· · · · · 

Contradictions and Conservatism Muddle Hopes for Change Under Jesuit Pope

Emblem of the Jesuit Order

Bergoglio’s past statements show a lack of understanding of how fundamental reproductive autonomy is to economic justice.

· · · · · 

As Notre Dame Appeals Birth Control Benefit, Costs to Catholic Universities of Discriminatory Health Plans Increase

Notre Dame admissions building.

It is now clear that no “compromise” short of freeing all health plans from any regulation whatsoever having to do with contraception will placate fundamentalist Catholic groups. But with the Notre Dame appeal also comes evidence that the costs of these suits to Catholic universities is rising.

· · · · · 

Unethical, Cruel, and Likely Illegal: Anti-Choicers Make Family’s Tragedy Public Without Their Consent

Anti-choice activist Jill Stanek recently published online the name and photo of a woman who passed away following a late-term abortion at the Maryland clinic of Dr. Leroy Carhart.  Beyond being unethical and unbelievably cruel, making her family’s tragedy public without their consent was likely illegal.

Anti-choice activist Jill Stanek recently published online the name and photo of a woman who passed away following a late-term abortion at the Maryland clinic of Dr. Leroy Carhart.  Beyond being unethical and unbelievably cruel, making her family’s tragedy public without their consent was likely illegal.

· · · · · 

For It Before They Were Against It: Catholic Universities and Birth Control

2013-02-14-dunlap

Did you know that from the sixties through the nineties, clergy and faculty at Notre Dame, Georgetown, and other Catholic-affiliated universities lobbied for coverage of birth control? And argued for the moral imperative of providing coverage for contraception… even on campus?

· · · · · 

The Originalist Argument for Abortion Rights: Compulsory Childbearing During Antebellum Slavery and Its Relevance Today

(iCivics)

There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution so it can’t be protected. However, in a recent essay, Andrew Koppelman challenges this assertion on originalist grounds: forced reproduction was intrinsic to slavery, which the framers of the Thirteenth Amendment sought to prohibit.  

· · · · · 

A Question for Anti-Choicers: How, Exactly, Would Your Rape Exception Work?

No politician or pundit should get away with claiming he supports any “exception” without facing the obvious follow-up question: “How, exactly, would it work?”

· · · · · 

UPDATE: A Closer Look at the Contraceptive Coverage Lawsuits: The Radical Agenda Behind the Fight Over Religious Exemptions

Thirty lawsuits have been filed by corporations challenging the HHS regulation requiring that most health plans cover contraceptives. A survey of these cases yields some useful information as to what the “religious freedom” debate is all about.

· · · · · 

USCCB Makes False Statement about Contraception Mandate Ruling

On Friday, the USCCB tweeted this demonstrably false statement: “Federal judge finds HHS mandate violates conscience rights of private employer.” That did not happen.

· · · · ·