So, Scott Brown trusts women to risk their lives on the front lines for America. “We have an obligation to expand the professional opportunities available to women, especially considering their sacrifices,’’ he says. Good.

He’s willing to have women take part in combat, but he doesn’t trust women to make decisions to protect their own bodies? How else can you explain Senator Brown’s support for extreme legislation (the Blunt Amendment) that would allow any employer to deny their employees insurance coverage for any health care service -- from contraception to cancer screening -- by citing "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

Allowing CEOs to impose their religious views on their employees is not religious liberty. It's discrimination, plain and simple. And “moral convictions” could be used to justify almost anything.

ACLU of Massachusetts communications director Christopher Ott wrote this guest blog.

Senator Scott Brown would presumably never support legislation allowing a restaurant owner to refuse service to members of a specific race--and rightly so. We've made it unlawful for business owners to impose views like this on their customers or the communities where they do business.

Senator Brown would also never support legislation making it legal for a business owner to refuse to hire people of another religious faith. Except for ministerial-type positions, we've passed laws to prevent that kind of discrimination too.

That's what makes it confusing--and alarming--that Senator Brown now supports legislation that would allow employers to impose their beliefs on employees. Senator Brown has cosponsored an extreme measure known as the Blunt Amendment, which would allow any employer to deny coverage for any health care service--not just contraception, but things like HIV testing, cervical cancer, fertility treatment, genetic testing, and more--by citing "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

We need to tell Senator Brown that no one's boss should be making decisions about employees' use of birth control, or other private health matters.

ACLU of Massachusetts Online Communications Coordinator Danielle Riendeau wrote the following guest blog:

As someone who cares deeply about women’s health--and has participated in races for breast cancer awareness that are affiliated with the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure--the news yesterday that the breast cancer charity announced it would stop funding Planned Parenthood for breast health services utterly shocked me, and I know I’m not the only one.

The issue at hand, of course, is the fact that Planned Parenthood provides comprehensive care to women. They provide cancer screenings, information about contraception, and yes, abortion care, to anyone who needs their services, including many low-income and uninsured women who would otherwise have no safe access to any of the above. The Komen Foundation has pulled their funding wholesale, thanks to intense political pressure from anti-choice voices--one of which is coming from inside the organization.