The struggle for LGBT rights and the struggle for reproductive rights are inseparable—and we have to change the role religion is playing.
The contraceptive wars started with the notorious campaign in the late 19th century of the Postmaster General Anthony Comstock, who successfully banned the spread of information about contraception under an obscenity statute.
A new Georgia law that bans insurance coverage of abortion for both state employees and anyone buying coverage via the state exchange that was established as part of the Affordable Care Act took effect last week.
A ruling late Thursday shows that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case was as much a political decision as a legal one.
Fourteen faith leaders, including many who have been allies of the administration, are urging the president to include a religious exemption in his upcoming executive order that will ban federal contractors from employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.
Wheaton College, a religiously affiliated nonprofit, has asked for an emergency order exempting it from complying with the accommodation to the contraception benefit in the Affordable Care Act.
While the Hobby Lobby ruling keeps the government from guaranteeing basic reproductive health care for workers, the Harris decision effectively hobbles the ability of a group of public employees—most of whom are women—to properly bargain for affordable health care along with other vital benefits.
The giant system backlog means that many state residents eligible for the program aren’t receiving the care they need. Multiple sources report that people hoping to be covered through the program are putting off going to a doctor until their enrollment is confirmed.
Monday’s Hobby Lobby ruling is one more piece of evidence that we still do not value women’s rights in the same way that we value “universal rights”—that is, rights that pertain to men.
Amid the anguish over the Hobby Lobby ruling Monday was a note of optimism among some liberals, suggesting that the ruling was constructed with a narrowness that specifically prohibits use of its legal reasoning to protect religiously inspired discrimination against LGBT people. If only that was in fact the case.