In her landmark 1971 paper, Judith Jarvis Thomson tried to defend abortion by appeal to norms of justification consistently applicable in a range of other cases. By contrast, the courts in and after Roe and Casey have treated the right to abortion as an unquestionable legal principle. This inverted approach is doomed to fail as it continues to reveal the anomalous character of abortion rights.
President Obama has sacrificed the well-being of our nation’s youth on the altar of ideology.
In our emerging legal climate, Christians are to be admired for their dedication to moral principle, and they are welcome to act in accordance with it at home and at church. But once they venture into public, our new legal overlords tell us, they must act according to a different set of norms.
It is morally indefensible for Catholic institutions to recognize and incentivize same-sex marriages by extending marriage benefits to employees who declare themselves legally married to a person of the same sex.
US religious liberty law is not perfect, but it still deserves our support. Religious exemptions witness to the value of religion as a transcendent good. And nothing in the Supreme Court cases requesting religious liberty exemptions for Muslim citizens undermines that effort.
Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Greece v. Galloway is the Court’s best piece of Establishment Clause work in decades—and a happy omen for religious liberty in our country.
The lifelong, unbreakable chords of fealty and identity that family members possess for each other depend upon the biological matrix created by the marital union of man and woman.
The pro-life movement has won a great battle by convincing the American public that an unborn child is a person. But that is not enough. Now, we must make an ethical argument against the horrific injustice of abortion.
The age in which all states were united in understanding marriage as the exclusive union of man and woman for life has passed away. Now, new legislation seeks to protect the right of each state to define marriage for those who reside within its borders.
Judicial precedent, historical awareness, and the very nature of prayer all make it clear: legislators have the right to begin their assemblies with a prayer.
Faith-based dorms at secular universities offer a positive alternative to the indoctrination and debasement present on many campuses.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would equate sexual orientation and gender identity, ambiguous and malleable concepts, with immutable features like race, color, and ethnicity as classes worthy of special legal protection.
The Roe Court’s suppression of a foundational question—who is the law for—means that the decision could be overturned by any of several feticide cases that could reach the current Court.
The HHS mandate illustrates three liberal ideological commitments that treat religious freedom as an afterthought.
The views about faith and religion that President Obama expressed in his Commencement Address at Notre Dame pave the way for his HHS mandate. He would protect the state from the church, not by privatizing faith, but by redefining it.
A recent rule issued by the Obama administration threatens our nation’s healthcare by attacking the consciences of our nation’s healthcare providers.
Defenders of conjugal marriage must be careful to not obscure the true nature of marriage—and the state’s true interest in promoting it.
There is an intrinsic link between marriage and procreation, but this does not mean that infertile couples cannot really be married.
President Obama has dropped the defense of marriage out of political convenience rather than reasonable opposition.
Though there is no hope of having a morally neutral definition of marriage, it is possible to have one based on human nature and supported by sound reasoning.
The Golden Rule should serve as a guide to those weighing a vote for "pro-choice" politicians.