Erika Bachiochi

Pro-lifers have waited nearly a half century for the Court to repudiate its entire ill-founded abortion jurisprudence.

A jurisprudence that treated women’s interests as distinct from those of abortion providers might come rather to see abortion for what it really is: a quick, easy, and relatively cheap way to keep women from demanding more, more of men, more of employers, more of medicine, more of the community at large.

Equality premised on the power to end life is not true equality at all.

Should the President have another chance, and should that chance come in the form of the retirement of an aged Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Trump should pull the trigger and nominate Amy Coney Barrett.

The justices’ concerns about women’s equality are the key interpretative lens through which to understand the controversial reaffirmance of Roe v. Wade, but one which has been inadequately explored and critiqued on the part of those critical of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The Church must prioritize the health and strength of every marriage – for who else in the world right now knows how important each and every marriage is to the development of persons and of nations?

An authentic women’s movement—one that properly extols human dignity, care, and non-violence—must be unabashedly pro-life.

To create a society in which human beings can flourish, we must support child-raising families, schools that intentionally cultivate the intellectual and moral virtues, and local church communities.

If we are to safeguard the moral conditions for an authentic human ecology we must take far more seriously the care, nurture, and cultivation of children and young people in virtue.

Modern thought has largely neglected dependency, instead touting individual autonomy and rational self-interest. If we are to recover the human person’s proper relationship with others, we must turn to thinkers who give dependency its due.

There is no question that the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt is a win for abortion clinics and their doctors. Whether the decision is a victory for women and for liberty, we ought not be so sure.

The gross misappropriation of executive power to utterly remake the meaning of very basic legal terms threatens not only the structure of our government, it threatens the rule of law itself. This distortion of legal language is a particular threat to laws concerning women.