MacLean: Why is Lena Dunham toning down her messaging in favor of Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate?

There are many reasons Dunham may have chosen to back off the case that commitment-free sex, made possible by contraception and abortion, is essential to ensuring women’s health and equality. Perhaps the last 50 years of collected science calling that premise seriously into doubt is finally gaining purchase.

Perhaps it’s the fact that, even though the purportedly “necessary” and “essential” contraception mandate has been in place for five years, the rate of use among sexually active women has not changed. Or it could be that cost is not even on the list of reasons the 11 percent of sexually active women who do not use contraception frequently cite. Or maybe the Supreme Court has rejected the argument so often that the Lena Dunhams of the world now know it’s a loser.

Whatever the reason, those working to advance an authentic notion of freedom and human dignity should consider it a small victory when a leading mouthpiece for the contraception-and-abortion pipeline sees a serious weakness in her cause’s primary strategy.

~ Annie R. MacLean, The Federalist, June 20