I have a love/hate relationship with The New Yorker. I love "The Talk of the Town", rush to read the cartoons, and even enjoy the clever ads. But, I often don't have time to do more than skim the articles which almost always seem to me about four pages too long, and they have a tendency to pile up in our living room, a reminder of how little time I really have after motherhood, writing, and ministry.
But, I want to encourage you to try to read every word in Michael Specter's article in the March 13, 2006 issue, "The White House vs. the laboratory." It is a thoughtful, well researched article on the Bush administration's war on science, particularly science around contraception, emergency contraception, effective sexuality education programs, and stem cell research. He writes that this administration is vehemently and boldly opposed to "any drug, vaccine, or initiative that could be interpreted as lessening the risks associated with premarital sex."
Specter in part says this is the result of religous influences in the White House. What he does not include in this otherwise excellent article are progressive religious voices decrying the politicalization of science. There is nothing moral or ethical or religious about denying information about condoms and other contraception, withholding drugs that should be approved, and restricting research that can save lives.