When the GOP’s party platform called pornography a “public-health crisis that is destroying the life of millions,” the statement prompted eye-rolling from some liberal media sites.

So imagine the shock provoked this weekend by a wake-up call on this subject by New York Times columnist Judith Shulevitz: It’s O.K., Liberal Parents, You Can Freak Out About Porn.

Shulevitz only skimmed the surface of the public health challenge posed by toxic, readily accessible internet pornography. But at least she didn’t dismiss exposure to violent and weird sexual images as a natural part of growing up.  She writes:

Parents don’t have to believe that such material is a direct cause of sexual violence to...READ MORE

“Have Christians Created a Harmful Atmosphere for Gays?” asked The New York Times’ opinion page, in the wake of Omar Mateen's deadly attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando that killed 49 people.

Mateen was a Muslim who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State on Facebook and in calls to 911. After the massacre, political and religious leaders, including many Catholic bishops, rightly warned the public not to retaliate by scapegoating people of his faith. 

But, instead, Christians were ambushed by allegations that they bore some responsibility for the deadliest shooting in the nation's history. And some LGBT activists and their media allies accused opponents of same-sex marriage who expressed...READ MORE

[Editor: This post was updated at 8:30 p.m. Pacific time, to include coverage of Cardinal Wuerl's homily at a "Mass for Life" for university students at a parish church in Georgetown.]

Georgetown University had defended Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards' April 20 speech on campus as evidence of the Catholic institution's commitment to the "free exchange of ideas."

But take a look at Richards' speech here, and it is clear that election year politics brought her to Georgetown. She gave a plug for Hillary Clinton, attacked congressional efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, and targeted recent legislation in Texas designed to raise standards at abortion clinics.

The Cardinal...READ MORE

After years of litigation over the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate, the Obama administration signaled yesterday that it could make further changes to the controversial accommodation it provided the Little Sisters of the Poor and many other religious nonprofits.

Could this new admission undermine the government's case? That's the question now.

When March 23 oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell revealed weaknesses in the government's case, the justices unexpectedly issued a March 29 order that directed the both sides to offer fresh solutions to the impasse.

The plaintiffs and the government were each told to provide a formal response to  the following question:

Whether and...READ MORE

Just days after eight justices heard oral arguments for the legal challenge to the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate filed by the Little Sisters of the Poor, and six other cases, the Court asked both the Obama administration and the plaintiffs to provide fresh solutions that addressed their moral objections, while serving the needs of their employees.   

“This is an excellent development. Clearly the Supreme Court understood the Sisters' concern that the government's current scheme forces them to violate their religion,” said the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's Mark Rienzi, in a press release.

“We look forward to offering alternatives that protect the Little Sisters'...READ MORE