If we lived in a sane world, the most shocking recent story would not be that President Obama has tried to force Catholic organizations to provide health care insurance that includes birth control. It would be the story revealing that half of new mothers younger than 30 are unwed.
The sane response to the information in that story is to encourage young, unwed women to use birth control, and for society to pursue government policies that make birth control affordable and available.
Part of any effort to limit out-of-wedlock births also must be to encourage men and boys to use condoms. Women's advocates often point out that the male is as responsible for out-of-wedlock births as is the female.
It is a fact that unwed women who become pregnant are more likely to pay the price in poverty and hardship -- emotional and otherwise. Their children, however, pay the highest price.
There are many couples who are committed to each other and to their children but do not wed because they don't want or need official approval from religious or civil authorities. Fine by me.
But that's not the kind of couple behind skyrocketing out-of-wedlock births. Rather, the typical "couple" having a child out of wedlock isn't a couple at all. It's a girl or young woman facing life as a single parent with poor employment prospects.
It is significant that the only group of under-30 women still more likely to get married before having children is college graduates. Those women tend to be more affluent and to have more family support to begin with. Controlling their reproductive lives extends their head start in life.
I want to be clear about the moral judgments I'm making here. Whether a woman is wed or unwed is less important than whether the woman and man who bring a child into the world are capable of properly taking care of that child.