Dr. Christopher Kaczor — Conscience and Its Threats

Dr. Christopher Kaczor, Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University, discusses the current threats to the consciences of healthcare workers.  Dr. Kaczor is the author of several books, including “The Seven Big Myths About the Catholic Church” and “The Ethics of Abortion.”

Watch the full talk here: Defending Rights of Conscience for Healthcare Workers.

Dr. Christopher Kaczor — Arguments for the Protection of Conscience

Dr. Christopher Kaczor, Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University, discusses reasons that conscience protections need to be codified.  Dr. Kaczor is the author of several books, including “The Seven Big Myths About the Catholic Church” and “The Ethics of Abortion.”

Watch the full talk here: Defending Rights of Conscience for Healthcare Workers.

Dr. Christopher Kaczor — Defending Rights of Conscience for Healthcare Workers

Dr. Christopher Kaczor, Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University, discusses the nature of conscience and gives his reasons about why the conscience rights of healthcare workers need to be preserved.  Dr. Kaczor is the author of several books, including “The Seven Big Myths About the Catholic Church” and “The Ethics of Abortion.”

Obamacare Overreaches on HHS Mandate

 A Catholic biologist weighs in on what is wrong about one aspect of the federal healthcare mandate.

It’s an understatement to say that the Obama administration’s announcement that it will require all health-care plans to include free coverage for contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs (abortifacients) and sterilizations did not go over as smoothly as planned.

While the new rule is similar to provisions already in place in 28 states, the administration distinguished itself by failing to include an adequate religious exemption.

As a result, Catholic charities, colleges and hospitals will be required to provide services that violate their religious beliefs.

The lack of a real religious exemption triggered a wave of backlash that appeared to catch the administration by surprise.

Opposition from many religious circles was to be expected, but the fact that publications such as USA Today and The Washington Post came out in opposition to the lack of a religious exemption could not have been anticipated.

Caught in a firestorm of controversy, the Obama administration tried to wordsmith its way out of the mess.

Read more at NCRegister.com.

Franciscan, Ave Maria, and Obamacare

Two Catholic universities’ decisions to drop student health-care plans show Obamacare’s long-term goal: Force Americans to choose government-subsidized plans over no insurance at all.

Two Catholic universities, Franciscan University of Steubenville and Ave Maria University, recently announced that they will drop their student health-care plans for the coming year. The schools also announced that they will no longer require students to have health insurance.

Given the giant range of institutions and people affected by Obamacare and its mandates, the impact of this decision by two universities, each with less than 3,000 students, may seem small. But it is not the scope of impact that matters so much as the broader problem the decision highlights. Two federal regulations that pushed Franciscan and Ave Maria to drop student health-care plans indicate quite clearly what will happen if Obamacare is allowed to stand: More Americans will become uninsured unless they transition into government-subsidized healthcare plans.

Read more at The Public Discourse.

Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Connection

There is an intrinsic link between marriage and procreation, but this does not mean that infertile couples cannot really be married.

By Dr. Patrick Lee, the John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Professor of Bioethics and Director of the Institute of Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville;
Dr. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University; and
Dr. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame Law School.

Activists seeking to redefine marriage typically claim that it is unfair—even arbitrary—for law and public policy to continue to honor the historic understanding of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Believing that marriage has a degree of malleability that our legal tradition has heretofore failed to recognize, they maintain that “excluding” same-sex partners from marriage violates a moral right possessed by every individual to marry a person of one’s choice (with that person’s consent). Defenders of conjugal marriage reply (in part) that marriage is not malleable in the ways that their opponents suppose.

Read article at The Public Discourse.

Franciscan University Presents on EWTN