At First Things, Matthew Cantirino discusses Peter Singer's reaction to the strong reaction to a recent essay arguing in favor of infanticide.
Nevertheless, what's surprising about Singer's response is not necessarily his position on infanticide (which, at this point, is well known), but the academic insularity it exudes. He appears to be genuinely bothered that a paper arguing there should be no ethical taboo against killing a newborn baby is fomenting "virulence" among the general public. If only the grown-ups who run academic journals were left alone to "discuss it in a serious and well-reasoned manner," why, the controversy would be practically nonexistent.
Prolifers in Jacksonville won a lawsuit over the city's ordinance which prevented them from protesting near an abortion clinic because the spot lacked sidewalks.
A guess this is what counts as research nowadays. The New Times' Economix blog is linking to a Brookings Institute paper which claims that if the federal government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on various projects (mass-media campaigns, evidence-based teen pregnancy intervention and expanding access to Medicaid family planning aka giving people who aren't poor free contraceptives) aimed at reducing unplanned pregnancies, the government would save much more money from the decrease in unplanned pregnancies. Of course, the small percentage reductions in unplanned pregnancies are based solely on estimates from the same author apparently in a different paper and the expanding access to Medicaid family planning insanely estimates that it would reduce unplanned pregnancies by 4.1%.
Yeah, that's not happening when only a small percentage of the people who get pregnant without using contraceptives failed to use contraceptives because of "access" issues. We're left to believe that large percentage of the people who supposedly can't afford contraception are going to eligible to enroll in this plan, enroll in the plan and use contraception every time perfectly or decide to use unpopular long-acting contraceptives.
Jonah Goldberg on Democrats' dishonesty over Obama's contraceptive mandate.
The Obama campaign insists that "if Mitt Romney and a few Republican senators get their way, employers could be making women's healthcare decisions for them" and require that women seek a permission slip to obtain birth control.
It's all so breathtakingly dishonest. Rather than transport us to President Franklin Pierce's America, never mind Charlemagne's Europe, the Blunt amendment would send America hurtling back to January 2012. That's when women were free to buy birth control from their local Ralphs or Wal-Mart, and religious employers could opt not to subsidize the purchase. What a terrifying time that must have been for America's women.