Jennifer Lahl was recently interviewed by ABC News about women who regret being surrogate mothers. A surrogacy agreement is when a woman agrees to carry and give birth to a child for someone else. In some cases, the pregnancy occurs through in vitro fertilization so that the baby is genetically unrelated to the woman who carries the child. In other cases, the woman who carries the child becomes pregnant naturally or artificially so that the child is genetically related to the woman who carries the baby. Usually, a woman agrees to receive a sum of money in exchange for being a surrogate. Continue Reading →
This morning on his daily podcast, Albert Mohler discusses a new study confirming what James Taranto called in 2005 “The Roe Effect.” The “Roe Effect” is the theory that Roe vs. Wade has resulted in fewer Democratic voters over the decades. Over 50 million unborn babies have been killed since 1973, and those 50 million have occurred disproportionately among traditionally Democratic constituencies. If the theory were true, it would mean that Roe has eliminated a large portion of the voters who most likely would have adopted their parents’s pro-choice views.
This latest study, authored by two researchers from Northwestern University, has essentially confirmed that the “Roe Effect” is real. Here is a summary of their findings in their own words: Continue Reading →
If you’ve ever been in a debate with someone about gay marriage, one of the conversation stoppers that proponents often throw out is this: “How does gay marriage hurt traditional marriage?” Or more personally, “How does my gay marriage corrupt your straight marriage?” The thinking goes like this. What two people do in the privacy of their own home ought not concern you, even if they choose to reinvent society’s most basic institution. After all, who are you to judge someone else’s pairing? If some people want to call gay unions a “marriage,” what’s that to you?
[read the rest at ERLC.com]
I have been watching with some interest the ongoing Twitter conversation between Ryan Anderson and New York Times reporter Josh Barro. Anderson supports the traditional marriage position, and Barro has been arguing that those who hold Anderson’s view are not worthy of civility. Barro says that such persons should be treated with the same intolerance that we would give to segregationists.
For anyone paying attention to the current cultural climate, none of this is surprising. Still, it is jarring to see such a bald expression of intolerance from a New York Times reporter. I encourage you to read Ryan Anderson’s two blog posts chronicling the conversation (here and here). Anderson is simply arguing that we ought to treat one another with respect and civility. Barro rejects this proposition in no uncertain terms. He says traditional marriage supporters do not deserve respect or civility and will not get any from him. Some of the conversation is below. Continue Reading →
Last April, Ryan Anderson made the case for traditional marriage at a conference at Stanford University. As far as the non-religious case for marriage goes, this is as good as it gets. The video above has highlights from the speech and subsequent debate with questioners. Below is Anderson’s full presentation followed by the entire Q&A with the audience. Whatever you do, don’t miss the Q&A. Continue Reading →
Karen Swallow Prior has written a crash-course in the difference between birth control and contraception at Christianity Today. If you didn’t know that there was a difference, this article is definitely for you. A couple of items here are noteworthy:
Last week, I wrote about two different groups petitioning the President about a forthcoming Executive Order (EO). News reports said that the EO would prohibit government contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. A group of prominent religious leaders wrote the President asking him to include religious exemptions, but a group of legal scholars wrote asking him to do the opposite. Continue Reading →
John Inazu has a fascinating piece at Christianity Today about religious liberty vs. LGBT rights. I encourage you to read this so that you can better understand how we’ve landed in the pickle we’re in right now. Inazu also offers three predictions about where things are going in the very near future:
Continue Reading →
In my last post, I highlighted an open letter sent to President Obama last month requesting a religious exemption in a forthcoming executive order. Yesterday, a group of legal scholars sent a letter to the President requesting the exact opposite. If you want to understand the logic of those who care little for religious freedom, you need to read this letter. I will highlight one salient section. It reads, Continue Reading →
Are Christian colleges still free to be Christian in this country? You may think that an unserious question, but if you’ve been paying attention to recent events surrounding Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts, you know it’s a very pressing question indeed.
Last month, Gordon College President Michael Lindsay added his signature to an open letter asking President Obama to include a religious exemption in a forthcoming executive order. The executive order will bar federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Thus any group receiving federal funds would be subject to this order. Those who signed the letter—including Rick Warren, Gabe Lyons, and several others—are concerned that the president’s executive order would prevent some religious organizations from requiring employees to hold to a Christian sexual ethic. Continue Reading →