While Americans are in a lather over the HHS mandate to provide "free" contraceptives to all who want them (paid for by all, despite the moral objections of many) such policies have long been in the making on an international level.
Consider these Yogyakarta Principles approved on an international level in 2007:
The Yogyakarta Principles are a set of principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. The Principles affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply. They promise a different future where all people born free and equal in dignity and rights can fulfil that precious birthright.
If sexual expression is a birthright, then it joins the fundamental rights of life and liberty, and must be provided for everyone on the planet, no matter what obstacles cultural norms create. That means that there is no difference between the Muslim endorsement of child brides and polygamy and the Christian call for chastity and fidelity within marriage. Both would be wrong if a young girl wished to express herself as a lesbian, as a prostitute or as a mymphomaniac. No one can tell her "no."
Ubiquitous, sterile sex is the panacea for the left, and is foundational to those who support the Yogyakarta Principles. It will only work if there is:
- sex without babies
- sex outside of marriage
- sex with whomever we want
- sex at any age
- sex without commitment
- sex without any ties or bonds (and babies ruin it!)
This has been the mantra of the UN population control people for years, and this has been the mantra of the SEICUS people who have been corrupting our children's education for decades.
Once people assume they have a right to sex without any restrictions, then it creates a market for abortion, which is lucrative ($$ billions annually).
The only thing better than sex without any commitment or restrictions is making it free -- i.e. making the taxpayers foot the bill. This has been in the works a long time. Pope Paul VI knew this when he wrote Humanae Vitae, and the Catholic Church has been holding the line (alone!) on this for years.
While the HHS manual is primarily a question of religious liberty, it is also a teaching moment to show how contraception has been an integral part of sexual license, promiscuity in all realms of society, and the destruction of the traditional family. Please inform yourselves of the link between contraception and divorce, abortion and sex trafficking. Pope Paul VI was right:
We take this opportunity to address those who are engaged in education and all those whose right and duty it is to provide for the common good of human society. We would call their attention to the need to create an atmosphere favorable to the growth of chastity so that true liberty may prevail over license and the norms of the moral law may be fully safeguarded. Everything therefore in the modern means of social communication which arouses men's baser passions and encourages low moral standards, as well as every obscenity in the written word and every form of indecency on the stage and screen, should be condemned publicly and unanimously by all those who have at heart the advance of civilization and the safeguarding of the outstanding values of the human spirit. It is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture (25) or by pleading the liberty which may be allowed in this field by the public authorities (HV, 22).

Comments
“People have realized that the complete removal of the feminine element from the Christian message is a shortcoming from an anthropological viewpoint. It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity."
This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!
That is astounding Robin, and good for you for standing up. At the heart of that matter, I think, is even worse than a gender mixing message. There is an increased sharper and sharper focus on the "self." Solid Catholic teaching returns our focus away from ourselves to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original sin, Eve denied her womanhood when she desired to be like "gods." Since the only god she knew was the Father. Where was Adam? He stood impotent... in other words, they were divorced. There's a young girl at Robin's son's high school who was just told that she is the center of the universe and it's a tragic disservice to her.
Ditto what Mary said! A lot of high schools have very poor math and science depts, for boys and girls. I also am educated as a chemical engineer, but chose to teach the two years before we had children because its hours were more suited to spending time with children. (I was looking ahead). When it came time and I was pregnant with our first, I realized that I did not want to leave him with someone else, and was able to stay home full time. I am not sure it would have been that easy if we were used to another engineering income and not just a private school teacher income. Also some of my first job offers were out on oil rigs - I had no interest in that at all even though I enjoyed my engineering classes and did well in them. No one discouraged me from an engineering job, on the contrary I got a lot of flack for my decision not to pursue an engineering career.
I've been lurking, but this is one that irritates me. Beats the heck out of me what these "barriers" are. I was educated as a chemical engineer, where 1/3 of our class was women. However, in electrical engineering, only 1 or 2 out of 30 were women. Is it possible that women are Just Not Interested in some areas? Nah, it must be The Man keeping us down so we must legislate (and, I agree -- when they say "legistlate", I hear "quota"). And actually, I have a friend that was also a chemical engineer. When she lost her job, she decided not to go back into engineering and started working from home so she could spend more time with her 3 kids. Also, if nothing else, there are all kinds of incentives for women to enter science and engineering -- scholarships not available to men, guaranteed housing on campuses that do not guarantee housing to the general population, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that schools in general are not preparing students for the hard sciences. It is truly a sad state of affairs, the lack of science education these days.