Columnist.
In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, two Catholic foster mothers and Catholic Social Services are suing the city of Philadelphia for violating their religious liberty rights.
Physical interventions on minors to "affirm" a mistaken "gender identity" violate sound medical ethics and should be prohibited.
The past two weeks brought welcome rulings from the Supreme Court on religious liberty. We should celebrate these victories, because religious liberty is an authentic natural and human right. But it's not enough. And even the best of religious liberty wins can't adequately contend in a proxy war over substantive issues.
Why are some in the government so determined to force a group of Catholic nuns to violate their beliefs?
Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion claims to apply a simple and straightforward test: "An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex."
A decade ago, President Barack Obama affirmed that marriage unites a man and woman. So did 45 states and the federal government.
Working to find legislative compromise can be a good thing. But not every bill that calls itself a compromise is a good compromise. And that, sadly, is the case with the so-called "Fairness for All" legislation introduced Friday.
Does a 50-year-old law banning discrimination based on sex mean employers must treat biological men who identify as women as if they are women?
This week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in cases that ask whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sex, extends to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status.
In a series of high-profile exchanges, conservatives are returning to first principles, reconsidering how best to protect and promote human dignity and the common good. This is to be applauded. Still, the way in which this reconsideration is taking place should itself be reconsidered.
Most everyone in America was and is in favor of marriage equality. Most everyone was and is in favor of marriage equality because most everyone wants the law to treat all marriages equally.
Back in October, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi told an audience at Harvard University that if the Democrats retook the House, one of her top legislative priorities would be to pass the misnamed Equality Act, a bill that would impose radical sexual ideology on the nation.
It's called the End-of-Life Option Act. That sounds appealing — until you realize that one of the options on offer is killing.
Recently, I heard from a woman who has a teenage daughter four years into the process of transitioning.
Two remarkable things took place last month in the world of biotechnology: A Chinese doctor claimed to have created two genetically modified human embryos who were successfully nurtured to birth, and the worldwide scientific community roundly rejected this experiment as a violation of ethics.
Does the golden rule ever require bad public policy?
Current proposals to create sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) laws with varying types of religious exemptions would not result in fairness for all. Instead, they would penalize many Americans who believe that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other.
