Your Move, Obama

You thought I was gonna depress you but then my school made me happy and BAM I DREW ERRBODY A PICTURE!

For my letters to Mr. Obama concerning the mandate go here and here. For why artificial contraception is the whackest, go here.

Also, thanks for having me out to speak, everybody from Cincinnati’s Theology on Tap! The Avengers was awesome, even if Loki was right, and I hope to see you again.

The Art of Dying
No, Christianity’s Not Eurocentric (But You Kind Of Are)
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and LOVE My Smartphone
Sexuality and the Land
  • Fisherman

    I’m jealous. Sometimes I really wish I was at Fransiscan.

    • AttentionDeficitCatholic

      You should be. We’re pretty awesome.

      • Tally Marx

        You cost a lot of $$$$$$$.

        • Cal-J

          Everyone costs a lot of $$$$$$$. Community college costs a lot of $$$$$$$, nowadays.

          • Nope

            My local college is $46 per unit hour, I would not call that expensive.

          • Fisherman

            How much does Franciscan cost? My school is about 40k/year. Not including supplies and textbooks and meal plans and other junk.

          • Guest

            27k a year? something like that

          • LizbethG13

            Franciscan is about 28k a year including meal plan and dorm housing, not including supplies and books….

          • musiciangirl591

            so its not as bad as Gannon, which is 35,000 dollars a year

          • Cait

            The 2012-2013 cost of attending FUS as a first year undergraduate student (including tuition, activity fees, room & board, & new student fees) is $29730. This does not include books or meal plan.

          • musiciangirl591

            i pay 15,000 dollars (approx) a year to go to a state school, i consider that expensive, but what i want to do (substance abuse counseling) i need a BS degree

        • musiciangirl591

          my school costs alot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and i don’t know how to pay the bills for next year without taking out loans

    • musiciangirl591

      me too, going to a Catholic college looks like fun, i was stuck between choosing gannon (named after Bishop Gannon of Erie) or Clarion (so secular its not even funny), even though i love Clarion alot, there are sometimes when i wish i chose Gannon or applied to FUS

  • Alicia

    ha! Love. And thanks for coming to Cincy…. we enjoyed having you – come back soon!

  • Kelli

    Love your post, as always. But WHAT? Loki was right???? About what? What have I missed?

    • Penny Farthing1893

      I think he means Loki’s idea that freedom is terribly difficult and that mankind is meant to bow down. However, we are meant to freely bow down to God, not some random Norse god.

      Like I said in my post: “Loki was only right in the overall scheme of things – if he was God or instituted by God, but he’s just some dude. So Captain America and that old guy in Germany were right.”

      Surrendering our difficult freedom and bowing down is not something we should do for dictators, or HHS mandates, or alien supervillains.

  • Cal-J

    “AKA not Georgetown.” Glad I showed up today.

  • Christina

    My kids will go to Franciscan. Or at least, they will be highly encouraged to apply. They’re 3 and 1, so I have time to groom them. ;)

    • JoFro

      Groom them? Sounds so so so wrong Christina!

      • To the contrary

        Groom them is a nice, compact word for what Christina does…..she’s raising her children and helping them understand the world and have the beliefs and morals she deems proper. It’s good parenting. I’m quite proud of the “grooming” I did when my children were young. They were able to avoid a lot of the pitfalls life today throws at young people. They’re wonderful, responsible, good, autonomous adults who never got in trouble.

  • M.

    I love your infographs. As always, stay awesome.

  • David L Alexander

    You spelled the name of the city wrong. It’s C-I-N-C-I-N-N-A-T-I. That’s three n’s and one t, not two n’s and two t’s.

    • Cal-J

      That’s because nobody’s managed to turn it into a fun challenge. I can spell Mississippi only because it was THE second-grade challenge of the playground.

      • Sophias_Favorite

        And because all the consonants in Mississippi after the M are doubled, so it’s not actually hard (there actually are languages, like Korean and some dialects of Italian, that can start words with double consonants).

        • Cal-J


  • Mjgtmom

    Awesome, simply awesome! I love the beer snuggled in among the holy things. St. Francis would approve, I think…

  • Nacrman

    Time for the Supreme Court to step up & throw out ObamaCare as unconstitutional. Hopefully, they will start with the HHS provision so states like Missouri (my home state) can also give it the boot at the local level like they are planning to do.

  • Erin

    Ahhhh when I saw this in the news I was happy! Just another reason to want to go to Franciscan :)

  • NowWait

    Quick question- and this is coming from a fellow “Bad Catholic” who is highly religious but disagrees with the Church on a few issues (I guess that makes me a heretic). Let me just play devil’s advocate. What is the difference between “Natural Family Planning” and artificial contraception? They both have the same goal-prevention of pregnancy and neither are 100% effective. One just has a nifty name. Similarly, one of my best friend’s mother is now infertile after beating cancer- Do who and her husband probably make love? Yep. But they know they’re not going to be able to have any children. Does that make them bad people? Similarly, I know a woman who adamantly does not want children but (shocker) is married. While she is a sweet person and does not have a problem with kids, she is just not very maternal. Plus, she and her husband are both active duty medical personnel in the military and travel a great deal. In my opinion, there is no reason for her not to be able to be married to someone she loves (and protected) without having a child. As much as I love this woman, if they had a child, God help that kid.

    Also, remember Sandra Fluke (aka the girl from Georgetown who spoke out against Georgetown denying birth control coverage). She talked about a friend who had polycystic ovary syndrome who needed contraceptive hormones for non-contraceptive purposes. Although Georgetown covered the condition, the insurance company repeatedly denied coverage of her prescription. Why? Because of the erran belief that the true purpose of the medication was contraception, despite the doctor’s verification of her condition. Luckily (sense the sarcasm?), the insurance did cover something that could help her get rid of this debilitating condition. A surgery that actually removed her ovaries. Which means she’s now infertile. Compare it to this scenario. You broke your arm. It’s like a doctor saying “Well your arm is broken but your insurance doesn’t cover a cast. Good news though! We can just amputate it.” See my point?

    As someone who struggled with producing proper levels of estrogen during my early teenage years and, despite my Irish Catholic mother’s hesitance, was put on birth control to balance them out. It worked. Honestly, while Franciscan may be trying to help cut costs and follow Church doctrine, it’s not truly considering their female population.I’m all for religious institutions following the Catholic Church but not when it interferes with the health of women. I really do not mean to disrespect you whatsoever, but I though this might be helpful.

    • Myanameo

      In the case you describe, birth control pills aren’t being used as contraception, but to balance out hormones. In this case, they are NOT birth control pills, because they are NOT contraception. They are hormone correction pills. That’s how you’d be billed for them. If you took logic or philosophy, you will recognize this as Doctrine of Double-Effect. You would also understand that this is a very old treatment, and there are now MUCH better methods to correct such situation.

      • NowWait

        Yet the medicine I have clearly states it is birth control and instead of arguing with insurance (who I think everyone knows are not the most pleasant people to deal with) it is billed under contraception. And really? There are “better ways?” What are they-Are they as simple as taking one pill every morning? It’s amazing how you seem to know these “ways” so well but my doctor, or the friend of Sandra Fluke’s doctor did not even mention them. Please, enlighten me.

        • Elaine

          Well, NaPro technology is pretty incredible. It’s about as simple as taking a pill, too. It involves tracking your cycle and your hormone levels to figure out what’s going wrong, and then you are proscribed medicine to fix whatever problem youre having, from PMS to PCOS. I’m currently using NaPro for some medical issues. It’s a lot cheaper in the long run than the Pill, I believe.

          There are probably other methods too, but NaPro is the one I know best. I have no idea why it’s not better known, since it’s highly effective… maybe it doesnt have a good publicity campaign?

          • Anon

            I am also using NaPro technology. I have PCOS and would never put birth control in my body because I know it won’t solve the problem. It’s just a tiny little band-aid at best and a carcinogen at worst. And the reason that NaPro technology is not better known is because most doctors don’t care to know about it. I was told by several NFP doctors that the birth control companies offer then major $$$ to push the pill. I suppose it’s true that money talks!

        • Catholic

          Now Wait, there definitely are MUCH better ways of dealing with hormonal imbalances and such. How do inknow this? Because, while in college, I was diagnosed as having hyper-thyroidism. After a year or taking a pill to help out, I realized through studying the issue more that the doctors were in fact trying to kill my thyroid instead of make it better. This was an easier way to treat it. After going through several doctors who required me to do the same thing, I began seeing a homeopathic doctor….and guess what! The issue was not even my thyroid, however it was being majorly afftected. The doctors only treated what wad right in front of them, without evening considering other alternatives or asking more questions about my past health. Now, all I have to do is take a few supplements, which don’t change me at all unlike the meds btw, and all is well. Doctors dont believe it so i regularly get my blood tested to make sure, but it is always great. Therefore, contrary to popular belief, doctors do not know everything. They may not have your best interest in mind, and they may be inflexible about looking at alternative treatment.

    • ladycygnus

      I think you should check out the posts he references at the end of this article. They answer a lot of the questions about why it’s not ethical.

      As for those who use it for true medical purposes, that is a different issue. The church is not opposed to that, although many people feel that doctors who prescribe the pill to “treat” these problems are being lazy (or ill-informed). Women shouldn’t be given a class 1 carcinogen that only masks problems. I know of a couple cases where women went on the pill to basically do a hard reboot of their system, but it was only temporary (again – class 1 carcinogen you don’t want to take that permanently). Too many are on the pill for years to “treat” hormonal issues, when in fact the underlying problem is still there, the pill is just masking it and making the woman think she is better, when she’s at best the same as before…or getting worse.

      There are people researching this to find ways of actually treating (instead of just masking) medical issues. Look up NaPro Technology.

    • Tally Marx

      “Both have the same goal-prevention of pregnancy.”

      But only one–artificial BC–seeks to rip something good in half by denying one aspect but not the other. NFP says that if we can’t embrace the procreative act of sex, then we won’t embrace sex at all. The former disrespects and denies the very essence of the procreative act; the latter doesn’t. What’s the difference, you ask? One is a lie and the other isn’t.

    • thoughtsandideas

      Actually, the Church teaches that NFP can be abused in a way that makes it immoral. NFP doesn’t insert anything artificial into the scenario, and rather than stopping the body’s natural functions, it strives to understand them to a greater extent in order to POSTPONE if such a situation is necessary. If someone is just using NFP because they don’t want kids and they don’t really have a legitimate reason to be postponing, that’s considered a sin as well. The marital act must be open to life. Part of this is rooted in the idea that a child is a gift form God (the bible calls children a gratuitous blessing on several occasions).

      This does mean that a child is a gift not an entitlement. There are couples who are infertile, but we look at Abraham and Sarah who were also infertile and yet by God’s grace had a child. So long as the infertile couple is open to their marital act creating life, even if their faculties aren’t working properly, they have not violated the sexual act in any moral fashion.

      As for the use of the pill for other medical reasons, my understanding is that there are other ways to treat almost all of the issues which can be addressed by the pill. In fact, more and more studies are finding that the pill is having negative health affects on those who take it regularly. However the Church does recognize that their may be situations in which doing one thing may lead to another, though the second effect was unintended. So when a mother who has cancer receives life saving treatment which is necessary to save her life but unintentionally ends the life of her child, we do not condemn that action. We do uplift as an act of pure and selfless love the decision to forgo that which would aid the mother but endanger the child, but the Church recognizes that there are situations in which an evil, while not intended may be the effect of a great good. The person must make an informed moral decision at times.

      • Gail Finke

        That’s simply not true. Some things that are commonly treated with contraceptive pills are best treated that way. Really. Are they overprescribed? I think so. But it’s not the case that “almost all of the issues” can be treated, or treated as effectively, other ways.

        • ladycygnus

          They can treat a lot more than you think. There are still things they are researching, yet at least they don’t think the pill is the first and final solution to any complaint a woman gives.

          Cramps? Irregular? Bleeding too much? Pain? Bloating? Acne? Headaches? A regular doctor says “we’ll put you on the pill, then you won’t complain!” A NaPro doctor says “let’s try to figure out what’s wrong…”

    • Jay E.

      1. Natural Family Planning vs. Contraception. NFP done right does not have the same goal. NFP is NOT “we’re not going to have children, so we’re not going to have sex at these times.” NFP is prudently saying “Ok, so we’re open to children, but realistically now is not the best time to have children. So out of love for each other and for our family, we’re not going have sex at these times.”

      Contraception says: “We don’t care about children, and we’re going to isolate sex from procreation”. NFP is not doing something.

      In the words of that great line from the Wastelands “What did you get married for if you didn’t want children?”

      2. Infertility in Marriage:

      “The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, “noble and worthy.’’ It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” CCC 2366

      3. Sandra Fluke likes to bring up genuine medical purposes for hormonal contraceptives to divert the embarrassing main crux of the argument: she wants to have sexual intercourse without worrying about getting pregnant, and she wants us to pay for it.

      Contraception isn’t healthcare for that purpose. If that’s the case, then the way women’s bodies normally function is wrong and ill. Fertility and pregnancy aren’t illnesses.

      Franciscan is following their conscience. Because of the tyrannical mandate, that means people have to suffer. Is it Franciscan’s fault for holding to their beliefs, or is it the Government’s fault for violating God-given Constitutional rights?

      • Alexandra

        Sandra Fluke isn’t asking you to pay for squat. She’s saying that she wants her insurance plan, which she pays for, to provide contraception so that she, and her fellow Georgetown students, can chose to use contraception if they want to. Whether it be for pregnancy prevention or treatment of PCOS.

        She wants her health care premiums to pay for contraception. She’s paying for her on contraception, and never asked anyone to help her.

        • ladycygnus

          You should research how insurance works (and how much it really costs). Typically a company pays in a LOT more than the employee, plus, everyone on the plan is paying into a pool of money. Thus, if the insurance plan covers something, everyone is paying for it.

          • Alexandra

            That’s true. But insurance has always worked that way. Which means that even without the HHS mandate the money that goes into the pool that will purchase things that some people might find objectionable. That argument has nothing to do with the HHS mandate.

            Insurance rates actually go down when contraception is covered, so there isn’t actually a coa to pass on in most cases. Women like Sandra Fluke are just saying that their employer shouldn’t be allowed to block her access to drugs. Not saying that their employer should have to spend more to allow them that benefit.

          • InformedAndFree

            Currently, there are lots of different insurance plans out there, and they don’t all cover the same things. The HHS mandate will set minimum standards that include abortifacient drugs, clinic abortions, etc. For Catholics, that’s a problem.

          • thoughtsandideas

            Common sense would dictate that an increased number of things covered would cause an increase in the cost. No one is blocking Sandra or anyone else from access to contraception. If someone wants to buy contraception, go on and do it. We just don’t want to pay for it. Its not even that its an incredible expense. The contraception mandate is stupid because contraceptives are literally handed out like candy. We’re just saying if you want to use it, then BUY IT YOURSELF!! I don’t ask other people to pay for my sports equipment, though I greatly enjoy sports and feel that the equipment keeps me much safer. Why should I pay so someone else can have sex in a way which I find immoral? If you want to have sex, if you want to use contraception… go ahead, just stop trying to get my insurance to pay for it. Or else, add my beer tab to your insurance because I’m going to need a few drinks to get over it.

          • Alexandra

            She is buying it herself. She wants her insurance to pay for it. Her insurance, that she paid for. How is this asking for you or your insurance to pay for it?

            While common sense might say that adding coverage for contraception will increase the cost of insurance, in practice it decreases the cost of insurance premiums because when people can prevent pregnancy the insurance ends up paying out less because there’s less prenatal care and births to pay for. Pregnancies are way more expensive than contraception.

            In blocking insurance coverage of contraception an employer and employees that share the cost of the premium is probably paying more than if contraception was covered. So actually, your employer is asking you to pay more to make it harder for women to get affordable hormonal contraceptives. Maybe you’re okay with paying for that?

          • guest

            It is not about money. You are missing the point or more accurately you are twisting the point.

            It is sad to see you becoming the resident troll Alexandra.

          • Alexandra

            He was making a point about him having to pay for someone’s contraception, so yes, that argument was about money. That’s not trolling, I was responding to the point raised.

            I know the objection to the HHS mandate isn’t about money, but thoughtsandideas was talking about money.

          • Olivia

            If it were true that more contraception, being free, and handed out more readily reduced pregnancy and costs related to unplanned pregnancies so substantially that you can make it part of the argument for this kind of transgression against religious freedom, then Insurance Companies would already be handing it out for free. (sorry for the RO sentence, in a hurry.)

          • Kate Burns Winchester

            Indeed, most insurance companies do give out contraception for free to their customers.

          • musiciangirl591

            *cough* socialism *cough* obama said we could keep our insurance, i like to not have seizures and i like my insurance (which pays for my pills which retail at 350+), if he makes me give that up then i’ll have a problem with him

        • musiciangirl591

          then why did the adminstration use her?

    • CorbNB

      Hi NowWait, I thought I would take a moment to address and answer some of your questions and comments mainly by way of link’s to pages where the responses to your common questions, objections and “what-ifs” are more thoughtfully addressed than I could :
      What is the difference between “Natural Family Planning” and artificial contraception?

      There is a substantial difference.

      Similarly, one of my best friend’s mother is now infertile after beating cancer- Do who and her husband probably make love? Yep. But they know they’re not going to be able to have any children. Does that make them bad people?

      Of course not.

      Similarly, I know a woman who adamantly does not want children but (shocker) is married. While she is a sweet person and does not have a problem with kids, she is just not very maternal. Plus, she and her husband are both active duty medical personnel in the military and travel a great deal. In my opinion, there is no reason for her not to be able to be married to someone she loves (and protected) without having a child. As much as I love this woman, if they had a child, God help that kid.

      Procreation and/or the openness to it, is the #1 purpose of marriage according the teachings of the Church. If the woman simply wanted to become married to be loved and protected (and not be open to procreation) then, being only partially sarcastic, she should have got a dog because it seems her purpose to marry was based on fulfilling emotional and sentimental desires.

      Also, remember Sandra Fluke (aka the girl from Georgetown who spoke out against Georgetown denying birth control coverage). She talked about a friend who had polycystic ovary syndrome who needed contraceptive hormones for non-contraceptive purposes. Although Georgetown covered the condition, the insurance company repeatedly denied coverage of her prescription. Why? Because of the erran belief that the true purpose of the medication was contraception, despite the doctor’s verification of her condition. Luckily (sense the sarcasm?), the insurance did cover something that could help her get rid of this debilitating condition. A surgery that actually removed her ovaries. Which means she’s now infertile. Compare it to this scenario. You broke your arm. It’s like a doctor saying “Well your arm is broken but your insurance doesn’t cover a cast. Good news though! We can just amputate it.” See my point?

      I am sorry but respectfully, I don’t see your point. What does the defintion of birth control by an insurance company have to do with why the Church teaches against artifical birth control? The definition of artificial birth control is not the issue but rather the intention behind the reason one takes it.

      As someone who struggled with producing proper levels of estrogen during my early teenage years and, despite my Irish Catholic mother’s hesitance, was put on birth control to balance them out. It worked. Honestly, while Franciscan may be trying to help cut costs and follow Church doctrine, it’s not truly considering their female population.I’m all for religious institutions following the Catholic Church but not when it interferes with the health of women. I really do not mean to disrespect you whatsoever, but I though this might be helpful.

      Since your intention to take birth control during your teenage years was to balance out hormones rather than artificially controlling birth, this as mentioned in one of the links I provided, does not violate the teaching of the Church.

    • Gail Finke

      NowWait: First, Sandra Fluke’s story about her friend (which, as it is too perfect an illustration of her agenda, I do not believe) is only what she said happened to her friend. It did not happen to her, and the friend did not speak for herself. That’s hearsay, and should never have been admissible as testimony. Second, should it be true… well, was this young woman in an Ivy League school, or what? If her insurance company denied her something she was entitled to, especially if she knew she had a serious illness that could have dire consequences if not treated, don’t tell me she was too helpless and didn’t know enough to keep petitioning for it, the same way anyone should. If she did not take responsibility for herself, she bears some of the blame for the outcome. And third, according to Fluke’s testimony, the surgeons didn’t remove her ovaries, they removed one ovary. Fluke said she MIGHT be infertile now, not that she is infertile. Finally, I don’t know that I like what Franciscan did, but I don’t see what else they could do, especially with insurance premiums doubling. It will be interesting to see what other schools do if that kind of rate increase is common.

      • NowWait

        First off. I want to thank everyone for their helpful and respectful replies. To be completely honest, we may have to agree to disagree on the topic of birth control. That is fine!

        NaPro does sound like an excellent technique to treating hormonal imbalances, as does one commenter’s “homeopathic way.” However, for me personally, birth control was the easiest and most effective way to treat my illness. I should specify. When I was 14 I lost weight VERY rapidly and it took doctor’s about two weeks to realize I had a tapeworm which had been depriving my body of nutrients and calories. Since I was still developing, it negatively affected my hormonal level/estrogen and my menstrual cycle which I had been receiving consistently since I was twelve stopped. I would feel dizzy to the point that I felt like I was going to pass out, cold and moody and get these horrible cramps that even Advil couldn’t stop. Using my parent’s insurance I went on the pill and felt better within three days. The next cycle I received my period. In about seven weeks, I gained back the weight I had lost (with a diet rich in nutrientand went off the pill. Simple as that. I am not on it now and plan to wait until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse (I told you I’m Catholic- I’ve just had a different experience with BC than many (:)

        All I really want is to just be assured that while, understandably, birth control will not be available for contraception on the basis of religious convictions, women who have similar problems and are on an insurance plan have the same option I had (as part of their PAID insurance program). As long as the pill is an option for these women if they had a medical condition like mine or Ms. Fluke’s friend, I am fine with it! Thank you for your assistance.

    • Catholic mom

      Sorry but birth control does NOTHING to cure PCOS. Your friend is better off seeing an endocronologist to find true relief for her condition. My daughter suffered from this and it wasn’t until she changed doctors that she was able to improve and is now the mother of a beautiful little girl.

  • Lauren

    I’m so happy that Catholic schools such as Franciscan and Ave Maria University are standing up, sticking with their identity, and fighting the good fight. Go us!

  • Marisamramos

    Why is Loki right?

    • Goblin Lord

      At one point during the Avengers, Loki says something about mankind being “made to kneel,” implying servitude to a higher sentient being.

      • Sophias_Favorite

        And as the samurai in Samurai Champloo is told (when he asks how a samurai’s service can be reconciled with the Zen teaching of total liberation), “Freedom includes freely binding oneself.”

        Which is basically a Chesterton quote.

  • Ais

    LOL Cinci’s ToT group loves you! And [in context {of your talk}], Loki was right conceptually, but he had the application thingy part all wrong xD Hence where the old man comes in.

    • Jared

      Mind giving me a cliffnotes on why Loki was right?

      Was it the whole “we are meant to serve” thing?

  • Alexandra

    This made me so sad. There’s only 200 students at Franciscan who use the university’s health plans, but those 200 kids are screwed now. My husband and I relied on university provided health insurance while in college. It was the only affordable way to have health insurance. For a year when he was out of school and not working full time, we couldn’t afford insurance and we’ve got a whole lot of medical debt from an emergency appendectomy. I feel really bad for those kids who are going to have to either go buy their own plans, which is ridiculously expensive, or just go without.

    All Franciscan has done is shown that it cares more about making a political statement than actually providing an affordable health care to it’s students. When some kid ends up in massive medical debt from deciding to go without medical insurance, I hope Franciscan reconsiders.

    • Cal-J

      *Moral* statement, Alexandra. We had this conversation months ago.

      • Alexandra

        That doesn’t mean it’s not a political statement. This isn’t either/or. It absolutely is political to stop offering healthcare insurance because of a law.

        • Dbcoopercatcher

          a political statement because of morals is different than a moral statement because of politics.
          when constructing a straw man, i would suggest using better glue with your propaganda.

          • Alexandra

            I think you’re the one constructing a strawman. I didn’t say that it was either of those things. I just said it is a political statement. That doesn’t preclude it being either of the things you said.

        • Elaine

          Alexandra, the hope is that the Supreme Court will find the healthcare mandate unconstitutional, since it’s already got so many lawsuits filed against it… to my knowledge, Franciscan doesn’t intend to go without health insurance indefinitely. This is a temporary solution until the mandate is overturned.

          I agree with you, though, that it really is unfortunate that there are students that will have to go without health insurance. We (or I, at least, I don’t know your religious views) need to pray for them, that they can stay healthy and out of medical debt.

      • Tacroy

        A *moral* statement would be “we will continue to provide health insurance to our students, but trust that as good Catholics they will resist the temptation to use it for birth control which we are now required to provide.”

        A *political* statement would be “we are taking a benefit away from particularly vocal voting population in order to apply political pressure with respect to a policy we find objectionable”.

    • meg

      your comment makes me sad. All Obama and his administration has done is show that they care more about their morals and what they want and will force anyone and everyone to comply even if it is against their beliefs. Why is it that you are taking up anger with the university instead of Obama? If they would back off on the mandate, the university would TOTALLY reinstate insurance. This administration is pretty stubborn, so why are not up in arms about them forcing employers and universities to pay more? you say it’s affordable? who the heck is going to pay for this? there’s no such thing as a free lunch. if anything, costs for tuition and etc. will go up! Besides, they are still offering clinic services for the basics for like 5 bucks.
      Anyway, that’s besides the point. How can you ask someone to compromise their beliefs for something that is totally unnecessary and frivolous? This Catholic faith is me, it’s all I am. There’s no point in my life besides who I was created to be, and if I can’t live to be that person and thank someone (i.e., God) for loving me enough to help me be that person, and love Him and His creatures, then I cannot live on this earth anymore. So, I’m not talking about a belief that can compromise based on my whims and ESPECIALLY not anyone else’s. This faith is the definition of my soul. This goes against my innermost being. I honestly would say I would rather go without insurance, lose all my limbs and my life rather than go against my faith. So who is this government to take that away from me and say basically, sorry, you are not allowed to believe what you believe and you have to do what we tell you. I have to say, I have a career that I just started, I moved out of my parents’ house, I’m paying all my bills on my own, including a brand new car payment, and I am today willing to throw all that away, pay fines and/or go to jail than compromise on this mandate.

      • Olivia

        There are many Catholics who feel the same way, Meg.

  • Jay E.

    Oh, you… Clever, clever…

  • Escalonn

    Thanks for making me smile/laugh. Sometimes I think that’s the best part of this blog.

    And like others I’m jealous of your school

    And Theology on Tap is a wonderful thing

  • Renee

    Franciscan University should be commended for taking this brave stand in defense of the truth of the Church’s teaching on contraception. I wish, though, that the school would stand up for the Church’s teaching against torture. I was disappointed to hear that FUS had invited former CIA director General Michael Hayden to speak at their commencement. As head of the CIA, General Hayden authorized the use of torture to extract information from suspected terrorists. He defended its use because he said, “It worked.” The Church teaches that torture is contrary to the dignity of the human person. We have to stay faithful to all of the Truth found in the Catholic Church.

    • Marc Barnes

      Yes, but then how would the administration be able to continue pretending that being ‘conservative’ is the same thing as being Catholic? And if Franciscan DID decide to make that distinction, how would they get the business majors there to come learn about how Capitalism is the Best Thing Ever? Think about it.

      • Renee

        Oh, yeah. What was I thinking?!

      • Sophias_Favorite

        Waterboarding isn’t torture, according to both the US DOJ and the EU. Torture involves pain.

        And simply in terms of creating human prosperity, Capitalism is the best thing ever. Hence why the medieval Catholic Church invented it, or at least most of the things its modern proponents consider essential (the monopolistic form of guild came later, in the breakup of the medieval system).

        Being an economically illiterate peacenik is even less Catholic, Marc.

        • c matt

          Torture involves pain.

          Have you ever been waterboarded? How do you know it doesn’t involve “pain?” Would you be willing to undergo it?

          • Sophias_Favorite

            I haven’t, but I’d be willing to (I would of course prefer not to, of course). You do know that all CIA and Special Forces operatives do, right?

            And it involves very little pain, merely fear; it is a simulated drowning.

          • lakingscrzy

            Whether there is any actual danger is irrelevant, the point of torture is to extract information through suffering. Would you say there is any inherent difference between a physically abusive relationship and a verbally abusive one? A waterboarding victim may not be physically harmed, but damaged psychologically.

          • Sophias_Favorite

            So now you think verbal harshness ought to be ruled out, in dealing with terrorists? Don’t make me laugh.

            In an ideal world, we could get everything we needed without coercion—but in an ideal world, there’d be no terrorists. “Actual physical pain” is a nice, clear line, and waterboarding doesn’t cross it. Coercion cannot be eliminated, but we’ve found a form of it that isn’t too extreme, while still being useful. Morals in the real world consists of striking a balance, in this case between the duty to protect innocents and the duty to avoid cruelty. Waterboarding is not too cruel for the purposes it’s necessary for.

          • lakingscrzy

            Fair enough, but it is still torture. Whether you wish to justify it for its results is on you, but let’s call a spade a spade.

          • Sophias_Favorite

            Why is that torture? By that logic, the fact we enforce laws by the threat of imprisonment and international peace by the threat of war is also torture. Police who merely draw their guns in order to subdue a suspect would, by your theory, have to be punished precisely the same as police who hook a suspect to a car-battery to extract a confession.

            Inflicting fear is not torture.

            Let us, indeed, call a spade a spade. And you wish to find excuses to side with terrorist savages against civilization and just laws, on the basis of no principle of rational law. Why? What is the origin of this pathological need to feel morally superior to people who have responsibilities you don’t?

          • Alexandra

            I’ve always been confused as to why it is always referred to as “simulated drowning.” It’s suffocation. I guess because there’s water involved there’s a need to call it drowning instead of suffocation.

          • David

            Both suffocation and drowning imply death. Waterboarding doesn’t kill its victims, thus the “simulated” part.

          • Alexandra

            I mean I guess, but they are being suffocated. They suffocation isn’t simulated.

        • c matt

          Waterboarding isn’t torture, according to both the US DOJ and the EU.

          And abortion is not murder according to those same august bodies. So what’s your point?

          • Sophias_Favorite

            So the ideology responsible for abortion being legal is not served by a finding favorable to the US government or the English in Northern Ireland.

            A statement disadvantageous to the known goals of the one who makes it can generally be taken as honest.

          • Micha Elyi

            “So what’s your point?”
            -c matt

            Other than there’s a shift key on your keyboard?

            Nevermind the US DOJ and EU. Waterboarding isn’t torture as the Catholic Church magisterium defines torture.

            Try again, kiddies.

          • Alex

            Micha Elyi, the Church defines torture as “physical or moral violence… to extract confessions… frighten opponents… etc.” CCC 2297. Being tied down and made to feel that you are drowning is violent. Period. Where is your evidence that the Catholic Church believes any differently?

          • Mark Kaschak

            Boom. Nailed it, Alex.

    • Nope

      But will the staff still get to keep their healthcare plans? And if yes, then why cut coverage to students, but let the coverage stand for the empl0yees?

      • Becca

        From everything I’ve seen on the issue, no, the staff don’t get to keep their healthcare plans.

        • annony11

          That has not yet been established… at least for faculty, although I cannot speak definitively for staff. As far as I am aware (from my parents who are both faculty), no official statement has been made concerning their health care plan.

    • thoughtsandideas

      I don’t know much about General Hayden, but I was there for his speech and it was totally excellent, and totally Catholic. I’m sure he doesn’t have the most pristine past, but that was a man who has shared Christ in some of the craziest places and situations. His speech was something I think we could all learn from as Catholics, liberal, conservative, independent, moronic, egotistical or whatever political views we may follow :) Like I said though, I don’t know much about him, I just know he was spot on at the graduation ceremony.

      • Christian Ohnimus

        His speech was excellent and I was glad to hear such a prominent figure in our military speak in favor of solidarity between the United States and other nations of the world, even those considered to be our enemies. However, Renee is right that General Hayden has unfortunately strayed from his Catholic faith – not just concerning torture but regarding the Patriot Act as well.

        • Micha Elyi

          However, Renee is wrong. And you too.

          Disagree? You’re welcome to cite chapter and verse of the appropriate magisterial document. Good luck finding one.

          • Alex

            Catechism of the Catholic Church 2297: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect fo rthe person and for human dignity.” … Obviously.

    • Guest

      He defended the use of waterboarding. While you’re right to assert that good ends don’t justify a bad means, you have made the unproven conclusion that waterboarding is torture. This is where people must make a prudential judgement as to whether waterboarding fulfills the criteria of torture. Unfortunately it is not cut and dry.

      • Renee

        I know that some people do question whether or not waterboarding is torture, and I may be obtuse, but I can’t understand why anyone would doubt that it is. If torture is the deliberate infliction of severe physical or mental pain in order to coerce someone, then waterboarding is obviously torture. The term “waterboarding” itself is a euphemism for “water torture.”

        As a pro-life Catholic, I believe that our message would be more credible if we didn’t try to make excuses when human dignity is violated in ways other than abortion.

        • Micha Elyi

          “If torture is…”

          …defined differently than the Catholic magisterium defines it, then torture can be anything one likes. For example, reading the nonsense of Renee and others is torture.

          As a more pro-life Catholic than Renee, I believe that our message would be more credible if the ignorant didn’t spout off as if they were some kind of authority and spread errors about what the Church teaches.

      • Alexsees

        Sorry, but this is unmitigated b.s.

    • Mikeledyard

      You can waterboard me at anytime but if I survive you have to leave the country. Forever !!! That’s how much I believe it is not torture !! Any takers !! How much are you willing to do for your beliefs ?

      • limbodog

        Mikeledyard “torture” does not equal “murder”. The whole point to waterboarding is that it makes the subject feel like they are going to die without actually killing them. I’m surprised you didn’t know that. We don’t waterboard people as a form of execution, we do it to torture information out of them.

  • John Paul Williams

    Well said, once again, Mark :)

  • Texan

    Hm. Perhaps my children will be allowed to go there if, God forbid, Texas A&M isn’t on the table.
    From an ecstatically married person, NFP rocks!

    • Aggie12

      Aggie Catholic, WHOOP!

      • TexAg13

        Another Aggie Catholic here, whoop!!

        • Big Tex

          Fightin’ Texas Aggie class of 1999! WHOOP!

          • Pietra

            Aggie class of 2016 right here (almost Franciscan class of 2016, but God had other plans)! I’ll be majoring in St. Mary’s. ;-)

          • TAMU ’01

            Class of ’01!
            Gig ‘Em Aggie Catholics!!!

          • Angela Pea

            Mom of an Aggie Catholic! *insert bumper sticker here*

  • Tacroy

    Ah yes, the old “I’m taking my ball and going home” strategy. A classic.

    • Cat

      More like our Mother [Church] is telling us to stop playing and come inside because she knows what’s best for us.

      • Tacroy

        Yeah, that sounds like my mother – crazy, irrational, and controlling. Thankfully though, she did always make sure I had health insurance.

        • Sophias_Favorite

          No, your mom sounds more like the Obama administration, then.

          But I’ll concede you make a powerful argument for contraception. Notice I did not say you state one.

          • Alexandra

            Actually, you’re on to something. He’s more of an argument for abortion.

            Tacroy was born in Brazil, where abortion is illegal. His mother has never stopped resenting him for existing. Growing up with a mom who didn’t have a choice can really make you pro-choice.

          • Sophias_Favorite

            You’re disgusting.

            You argue in favor of murder, and essentially say that the lives of those who would be resented are unworthy of being lived. Not even societies that actually exposed their infants would say that.

            You are, quite literally, the most disgusting creature I have ever had the profound displeasure to be exposed to.

          • Alexandra

            Well then I’m really glad for you. If I’m literally the most disgusting creature you’ve ever been exposed to, then you’ve had quite a fabulous life.

            No wonder my comments send you immediately into such an irrational tizzy. If you don’t have any perspective, it’s pretty easy to blow things out of proportion.

          • Sophias_Favorite

            No, I’ve known some utterly vile beings in my time, but never before one who could essentially take “Lebensunwerte Leben” as her starting point and still be that self-righteous.

            I will say of you what I have previously only said of Ayn Rand: I almost hope you’re right about the afterlife, your trotters would defile the floors of hell.

            As for irrational tizzy, do not flatter yourself. My reason is unfailing and certainly unassailable by the likes of you.

          • Alexandra

            I’ll stop flattering myself when you do the same.

          • Sophias_Favorite

            I’m not flattering myself. I actually have got the chops.

            Lemme put it this way. John C. Wright, who is mentioned in one of Marc’s recent posts, is almost certainly an intellect completely beyond your comprehension.

            I frequently find him insufferably obtuse.

          • Alexandra

            That’s not quite my point, Soph. You may very well be brilliant, and above me by leaps and bounds, but until you can stop harshly tearing people down and going on about how super intellectual you are, I can’t take you remotely seriously.

            You’re just coming off as pitiful. I’m sorry you’re so angry, sometimes being more intelligent than other people can be frustrating.

          • Sophias_Favorite

            I’m not really particularly angry. This barely even rates “irked”.

            And I don’t generally go on about how super intellectual I am. I only mentioned it when you said I was being irrational, and again when you said I was flattering myself.

            I mainly go on about how utterly unintelligent atheists are—because atheism is utterly unintelligent. It makes the Flat Earth Society look like the break room at the Manhattan Project. But I assure you, it’s not because I feel insecure in my own intellect; it’s because you feel unjustifiably secure in yours.

          • Alexandra

            I don’t know, I looked at your blog. Talking about how superior you are seems to be one of your major hobbies. I didn’t think it had anything to do with making yourself feel more sure of your superiority, but I’m not sure why you think it would make me feel less secure in mine, unless that wasn’t your point. Was your point just to rant and amuse yourself by calling us names because we have a worldview you find idiotic?

          • Sophias_Favorite

            Because you murder 1.7 million people per year—not counting war-dead and forced abortions—and then you talk about how dangerous religion is. Do you know what chutzpah means?

            And I never talk about how superior I am on my blog; I occasionally make a joke to that effect, but equally interspersed with self-deprecation. Are you lying or illiterate? Inquiring minds want to know.

          • Tacroy

            I vaguely recall a comment about me being “a powerful argument for contraception”, but for the life of me I just can’t seem to remember who said it. From reading this post, I can only assume it came from Alexandra.

          • Alexandra

            I guess I should be glad that abortion is illegal in Brazil. I really am just so vile for thinking that your mom should have been allowed to chose whether or not she wanted to have you that you’re probably the only person who can tolerate the fact that I’m apparently a self righteous Nazi.

          • Tacroy

            No no no, you’ve got it all wrong – you’re not a Nazi, you’re a Nazi pig. You must’ve missed the part where he slipped in that you’ve got trotters. It was pretty subtle, he only italicized it.

          • Alexandra

            There’s bacon in hell?

          • Marc Barnes

            One can hope…

          • Caisey Carroll

            Then it wouldn’t be hell, would it?

          • Sophias_Favorite

            I was obviously using hyperbole to insult you. She was being dead serious.

          • Alexandra

            That you feel the need to throw out deliberately dehumanizing insults is really much more pathetic than the fact that Tacroy and I agree that his mom should have had the right to terminate her unwanted pregnancy.

          • Sophias_Favorite

            Am I a beast, that I should act only from need? I insulted him because it amused me to insult him, and because he was calling names and making insinuations.

            But I didn’t say pathetic, I said horrifying—you say he is a Life Unworthy of Life, and he agrees with you. A person should at the very least have more self-preservation instinct—not to mention pride—than that.

          • Alexandra

            He didn’t attack you personally, you made it personal. And you misrepresented the argument we were making.

            Perhaps it is just that you operate on a level we can’t comprehend. Unfortunately, since you feel like just calling names, talking about Nazis, and bragging, instead of constructing persuasive arguments, we’ll just never have any idea of what it is we’re missing.

          • Sophias_Favorite

            He lied about my cause and my faith. I am negligible; attack those, and I will beat you to death with your own severed limbs.

            And if you argue like Himmler, you get compared to Himmler. Maybe stop believing the same things as Nazis?

          • Kim

            From a total pro-lifer, that was not a very positive response at all. Let’s be real, we get all mad at people for mocking pro-lifers and calling us names, and you just (for really no reason other than a difference of opinion) called another human being (made in the image and likeness of God) a disgusting creature.

            Not trying to be rude, but that isn’t cool.
            And neither was the other one about the “argument for contraception.”

            Keep it positive people, you represent the rest of us.

          • Sophias_Favorite

            You’re right, I’m sorry.

            I’m also sorry about the “argument for contraception” joke.

            But Alexandra’s position really is disgusting. It is a position first formulated, in its modern form, by Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, in 1930s Germany. If people who argue like Nazis are not disgusting, is anything?

            And before any of the n00bs start crying about Godwin’s Law, there are exceptions if the topic is war, genocide, or bioethics. Nazism was fundamentally a bioethical ideology; it is no more taboo to mention it in this context than it is to mention Marxism in the context of political economy.

          • Josh

            “Shut up,” she explained.

          • God

            Sophia- You’re a fucking stupid cunt. Please die and proceed to the kingdom. Thank you. Sincerely, God.

          • Sophias_Favorite

            Congratulations, you’ve actually made me look polite and evenhanded.

            Nice work, Azathoth.

          • musiciangirl591

            watch your language please, swearing makes you sound like you’re uneducated (in my eyes), same goes for you sophia, lay off the insults please

          • Thetruthwillsetyoufree

            Okay, Alexandra, here’s the deal…. Admittedly, it would be incredibly sad to have your mother resent you for your whole life. No one can argue that. However, the whole pro choice movement is based on the fact that it is a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body. However, a baby inside of a mother is not one body. The baby, which could be a female, has a body that is separate from her mother’s. First question, at what point do we start defending a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body? Cause these baby girls sure as hell have no say. What, they can’t talk? Oh, then let’s kill em. Second question, if the baby’s body is separate from her mother, what right does she have to do anything to it under the reasoning of Planned Parenthood?

          • Alexandra

            The idea behind pro-choice arguments is we have to trust women to make the decision that is right for them. As long as the fetus needs her body to survive, she should be allowed to say I don’t want to let it use my body anymore.

            Most women don’t do that. The vast majority of abortions are in the first trimester when it isn’t even a fetus yet, and calling it a baby is really a stretch. It could become a fetus, that would become a baby, but a woman’s bodily autonomy is more important than the right of that embryo to become a baby. Ideally, no one would have to actually have an abortion past the first trimester. I think even most people who are pro-choice would agree to that.

            Aborting actual fetuses is the minority of abortions and late term abortions are not a decision a woman makes lightly. Typically, these fetuses are not healthy and a woman makes a choice to not go through the risks of pregnancy and child birth just to have a child that will have a low quality of life. To force a woman to carry that pregnancy to term is slavery. Taking away her control of her body is not okay. We have to trust women to make the correct choice for their own bodies and for the fetus growing inside it.

            I’ll admit, it’s sad to terminate fetuses, but I don’t think there’s anything sad about terminating an embryo. My husband deserved to be born to a woman who wanted to be a mother. My mother in law deserved to not have to be pregnant with a child she didn’t want. Since he is alive, he’s of course worthy of life, but the fact is that his mom should have had a choice. She might have even made the choice to have him. But having that choice would have empowered her and perhaps helped her not feel like she was forced to have him and would have resented him less.

          • Thetruthwillsetyoufree

            An embryo, a fetus, a baby….it is all a different name for the same thing. A child, a teenager, an adult. They are still a human life, just are named differently at stages of life. To say it is not a baby is ignorant, and I am not saying that as an insult. Science has proven that the old, it’s not really a baby until the second or third trimester wrong when it had proved that human life begins at the point of contraception. And anyone who would believe that ending a life in the first trimester is different than ataxy other point in the pregnancy cannot be considered pro-life for the reasons previously stated. His mother should have given him up for adoption then, so he had a chance for love.

          • Thetruthwillsetyoufree

            And by contraception I mean conception. Ha…we all make mistakes, clearly. Bt that does jot discredit my point I hope.

          • Alexandra

            Of course not! I’m queen of typos and mishmashing my words.

          • Alexandra

            Sure, life begins at conception, but that doesn’t mean that that life has the rights of a person. There’s a distinct difference between the unborn and an independent person.

            Also adoption isn’t some kind of magic cure all that comes with no pain and struggle. Moreover, we’re talking about Brazil. Unless Angelina Jolie wanted to add to her brood being put up for adoption in Brazil probably wouldn’t end well.

          • Thetruthwillsetyoufree

            Wha is life, if not a person? It is not logical than those two things are distinct. An “independent person” would not be a fifteen year old girl who is pregnant but still living under the house and rules of her family. She is still very much dependent on her family in the most basic ways, as is a baby. She needs them to provide a nutritious diet for her and a safe place to grow. Perhaps not all girls would be in the same situation, but you cannot argue the truth in that scenario. How can you differentiate what there rights should be? And what do you believe the differences are? I realize very well that abortion is not pain free, but if you are saying that your husband has had such a miserable upbringing that he would rather not have been alive at all, then how could he possibly have done worse? Wouldn’t there be hope of something better than that?

            And as to the previous comment, I am not judging because only God is our judge, but as fellow human beings, it is our obligation defend the defenseless…is it not?

          • Thetruthwillsetyoufree

            Again, I mean adoption and not abortion.

          • Thetruthwillsetyoufree

            Although, both statements are definitely true.

          • Alexandra

            No, I’m not arguing it’d be better if my husband was never born. I’m saying that every woman should be able to chose if she wants to continue a pregnancy.

            I’m making the point that we both know what the consequences of not giving women a choice is and we don’t want to live in a world where women’s choices about what is inside their body is not their own.

            We have no right to force a woman to allow someone to live and grow inside of her. Her right bodily autonomy eliminates a fetus’s right to live off of and inside her.

          • musiciangirl591

            i had the same discussion with my boyfriend the other day :P

          • Thetruthwillsetyoufree

            And anyway, many have been told that their baby will gave a “low quality of life” and, when have continued in anyway have most often found two things: 1. The baby does not actually have any health problems and the doctors were mistaken, or 2. The baby, while having differen challenges than other kids, bring them just as much joy. Who are you or anyone else to say what is a high or low quality of life? It’s just not possible.

          • Alexandra

            Parents in consultation with their doctors are the ones who get to make the choice. It is their choice, and theirs only. Some people might be ready to welcome a child that isn’t healthy, and some people aren’t. I’d never judge someone harshly for deciding that they do not want to gestate an unhealthy child.

          • Josh

            Interesting use of the word “parents.” If it’s not a person, what are they “parents” of? Other than other people, what are people parents of?

          • limbodog

            To be more accurate: it’s different terms for different periods of time in the development of a human. A blastocyst is not the same stage of development as a baby.

          • Jane Hartman

            The definition of fetus is unborn baby.

          • Tacroy


            Did you get your medical degree from Liberty? You should probably look up definitions before you use them.

          • Gigalith

            Google: “An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception” Um, yeah?

          • Alexandra

            eight weeks after conception

          • Doc Mugwump

            All we are talking about is “time”…. If you wait for a embryo to grow, in time … let it be born and you point a gun at its head it will say, “Please don’t kill me.” You cannot do that with any other embryo. So… saying we cannot give a baby “time” to be born and grow up is like saying you could be shot on the street simply because you didn’t have time to say, “Please don’t shoot me.” The point is, there is a moral premise: murder of a human being is murder – no matter what stage of life they are at. If you let that moral premise go out the door, you live like non-Christian pagans (think of Rome: abortion, infanticide, public executions for sport… you get the idea).

          • Alexandra

            No, there’s much more to it than time. There’s a difference between the seconds between being able don’t, and the weeks between being an embryo and being a fetus. It develops and changes and becomes more capable of living without having to be inside of a woman.

          • Fabius

            I keep wondering if Frederick Douglass would be offended at this usage of the term…

            Apparently, a heartbeat at 22 days and brain waves at six weeks (still before most 1st trimester abortions) doesn’t mean much.

          • musiciangirl591

            if there’s a woman’s right to choose, can i choose to do drugs? should we support that?

          • Corita

            It is completely wrong for you to say something like that (and also your comment below.) I hope you are not posting here as a Catholic defending the Church.

            Having the wrong opinion about something is *not half* as bad as knowing the truth of our salvation and still being an uncharitable asshole to others.

          • Sophias_Favorite

            Lying and making sneering, self-righteous insinuations is worse than me treating the people who do it with contempt.

            Which is not to say I should’ve done it.

    • Abbie

      more like, “I’m taking my rights to religious and moral freedom as an American and preserving them in the only way that I possibly can”
      another classic!

      • Alexandra

        If that was the case they’d be cutting the faculty/staff insurance too.

        • Jeanette Marie

          First things first – stay tuned, they’re not going to cave on this either.
          Cynical much?

        • annony11

          Which they may very well still do. First step was eliminating student health care, second step was the lawsuit, third could easily be ending faculty/staff insurance. I can’t say that I hope it comes to that (because, as a dependent on faculty insurance, I’d rather not pay for my variety of medications without insurance) but if that becomes the only option, I expect they’ll do it.

  • Luc

    Thank you Franciscan Univ. I love when the Church is really reflected in the world. You get an A+++++++. Keep up the good work. May all Catholic institutions follow you.

  • Andy Anderson

    Just so everyone knows, FUS will be still providing $5 visits to the health center, only now without requiring health insurance. They are not just trying to make a political statement without any regard towards those which would be directly affected by the new policy. In addition student-athletes and students which are at the the Austria campus will still be under the insurance plans required by those respective situations.

    • Alexandra

      But what are they doing in the event that someone has a serious medical emergency?

      • Sophias_Favorite

        Donating their care?

        • God

          Naw, let them die and proceed to the kingdom. Sincerely, God. Also- Sophia go die.

          • Sophias_Favorite

            Again, making me look like the mature one takes a hell of a lot of effort. Nice work again, Azathoth.

          • musiciangirl591

            why are you here, if you’re just going to insult everyone here?

      • Kgarcia

        Read the statement released by the University for more information:

      • musiciangirl591

        go to the hospital?

  • Austin

    As a Junior this year, I am REALLY considering A) Franciscan University or B) Thomas Aquinas College.

    • Austin

      Junior in High School LOL

    • QDefenestration

      Also check out the University of Dallas! It’s in the same league as far as conservative catholic universities goes! (I almost went to TAC, but chose UD in the end)

      • Fabius

        To your great advantage.

        - UD ’08.

    • annony11

      I’d suggest FUS if you hope to enter the workforce without going for a master’s degree. Especially if you are interested in music, science, engineering, etc.

    • musiciangirl591

      choose FUS! i don’t go there, but i visited and its EPIC!

  • Emily

    This is what Obama wants! Especially if his “everybody is required to have insurance” health plan passes the supreme court. Let’s all pray it doesn’t, because it IS unconstitutional. However, in his plan, he forces these groups out of their own plan but then they’re forced to get something. Since current insurance companies are being run out of business, everyone will have to look to the govt for a plan. Obamas dream come true, everyone in socialized health system.

  • Mary Liz Bartell


  • Noe

    I’d love to work there, but…wait…Greek Catholics in Weirton! Country road, take me home…

  • Dunadan

    Loki was right, but so was the Awesome Old Guy, who didn’t deny that we were made to kneel, just not made to kneel to the likes of Loki. Thanks for coming out to speak!

    -Pierce O.

  • Zdkoenig

    Aggie Catholics at Texas A&M love your posts, bro. Keep blogging like a boss. St. Mary’s in College Station, TX is behind you!

  • Bob


  • Anna Dawson

    I love how the ad at the bottom is Join President Obama! Lol, nothanks.

  • Soulofdiscretion

    Your talk was superb and entertaining, thanks for coming out. Love this post. I support Fransiscan 100%!

  • Rachel F.

    I am a PROUD STUDENT at Franciscan University of Steubenville. :)

  • UKStudent

    And that’s how it’s done! #franciascanswag love it!

    yeahhh Loki….he was only PARTLY right, because like all good liars, his lies contain truths.

  • Jhough325

    Probably should have read the following before writing (drawing) this blog post.

    • Sam

      Indeed. Though it would be nice for this to be a moral stance, it seems to be a premature financial / PR move. If FUS really wanted to take a moral stance, they would have likewise cut the faculty/staff health coverage.

    • Denise

      I read the article and the author is missing the point. Franciscan is taking both a political and moral stance, but it is more to the point a religious liberty issue. People who are familiar with the University realize this and are in support of the of decision.

      As an alumni and a parent of a current student I was proud to hear this decision. Ever since the Obama administration has forced their hand in this issue and turned it publicly into a war on women (which they had to in order to get media support) many people know exactly what is at stake. This is an attack on religious liberty protected in our Constitution and should make any American extremely uncomfortable. The exemption is way too narrow and would also mean that Catholic organizations cannot employ non-Catholics.

      There are people who would love nothing more than to see the Catholic Church get out of education, healthcare, the adoption business, charitable work and this is a perfect way to do so while being under the guise of protecting the rights of women. Sebelius and the Obama administration have made it clear, specifically to Cardinal Dolan, there is no more discussion on this issue, and they are fully aware WE. WILL. NOT. COMPLY. We know this is what they want, but we cannot and will not violate our conscience. And if this goes unchecked all of America will suffer, just think about state run hospitals coupled with state run health insurance. What will an America look like without Catholic hospitals, charities or schools?

      You may think the answer is to simply give in to the mandate and don’t allow this to happen, but the Church won’t compromise on moral teachings and She has 2,000 years of experience behind her. We do not want our government telling our Church what She can and cannot do, or to just stick to worshipping inside the church building and go no further with our beliefs. And why the hell should we just give in and allow the government to run us?

      As for the question about the faculty insurance, Michael Hernon has answered that the University has a year to battle that, until August 2013. We have the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare, an election in November, and legal course that can be taken if necessary.

      In the meantime as a parent whose student may be affected by this, since the insurance coverage with my work is precarious, my husband and I are doing our research on personal insurance policies. But, I will not just give in and allow the government to dictate to me and my family, my Church, my priests, my nuns, my University how they are ‘allowed’ to live out their Catholic faith.

  • The Catholic Science Geek

    I was so excited for Franciscan standing its ground. I kind of wish I went there now…instead of Columbia University. #CatholicUniversityWin

  • David Ferguson

    I heartily applaud the spirit of civil disobedience and moral clarity present in this blog post, but a couple of questions/points:

    1) by jettisoning health plans, the school is saving a lot of financial and administrative headaches for for the school I imagine. Headaches unrelated to any moral crisis related to contraception. Heck most large bureaucracies would *love* to jettison health care from their list of responsibilities.

    2) “your move Obama?” Obama’s goal is to completely take over health care at the Federal level. Doesn’t the abandonment of health care plans at a local level help Obama achieve his goal? He would be more than happy to use Franciscan’s tactic as additional justification for a single payer system.

    3) I think it would have been better for Franciscan to simply say, “No, we are not going to change our health plan. Feel free to sue us all the way to the Supreme Court, Obama.” That seems to be a more clear moral and civic statement. I dare say that conservatives would have pitched in to help with the legal costs.

    • QDefenestration

      I believe they are indeed pursuing legal action. Or at least they were earlier this year.

      • annony11

        They just filed a lawsuit yesterday.

        • David Ferguson

          The Catholic colleges pro-actively suing the Feds also solves the problem nicely.

    • Mcmanus57

      I’m in agreement here . another point I wonder is while we must not allow our morals to be comprimised on the life issue, we must also provide our fellow man with health care, No? are we here becoming the priest and rabi who past the man in the street and then will Obama look like the Sameritan?

      • David Ferguson

        If you see a sick man in the street you are enjoined to help that person yourself, not pass a law that demands that all your neighbors be taxed in order to help that man.

        To me, Obama plays the role of the inn-keeper in the parable. Except in this example, the inn-keeper hires goons to mug people and leave them in the road, where they are encountered by good-hearted souls who then bring the wounded people to the inn for care.

    • Josh

      Very good points, David. One rejoinder to the last point: they would never find a carrier willing to provide a non-mandate-compliant plan. Even if they’re self-insured, they would never get reinsurance without a compliant plan design. Though I’m not familiar with the FUS details, I’m pretty sure a non-compliant plan isn’t an option.

  • Justin Parsley

    I want to read a whole message explaining how Loki was right! All things avengers assemble! ;) oh btw awesome blog as always ;)

  • Korou

    Excuse me for butting in. I would make this comment in a more appropriate place, maybe a couple of threads back. But I’m not sure if many people are reading them, so I’ll write it here.

    I’d like to apologise for crossing the line a while back and being rude. The kind of comments I made were not the kind I would like to make again.

    I’ll be taking a short break from this blog, and will try to do better when I come back again. Mea culpa.

    • Observer

      Korou, I couldn’t find any other posts from you, but I do hope you come back. When it gets heated around here, there is always someone to keep it going, but there is also always someone who can give you a logical explanation for what the Church teaches. You may not come away agreeing, but you’ll likely come away understanding.

    • Corita

      I have been there, Korou. Come back soon! :)

  • Jay E.

    Is there a recording of your speech for Theology on Tap? I’d love to hear it.

    • Lucas H

      Unfortunately, we didn’t get to record the talk. It’s too bad, because it was fantastic!

  • FatherJasonWorthley

    That’s a very good article. Thanks for posting!

  • siuol11

    That’s your brilliant move? cancelling all your health insurance plans? Wow, why didn’t anyone else think of that?
    (Probably because they like not being bankrupt by medical bills.)

  • KellyG

    Now we are Catholic. Maybe we can have the Bishops who oversee the catholic colleges to stand together on this with the rest of us American Catholics so the world catholics can look and say wow. American catholics are leading the way as usuall. God bless you all Franciscans maybe can show the Jesuits how to truly be catholic priests and bishops. The cripto jews in our church take note. We are comming after you and like Jesus did to the money changers. We are throwing you out to your city. We live in the “City of God”. Georgetown and Norte damne should have the woed Catholic removed from their buildings etc. they are NOT Catholic. All alumni who still send funds to these cripto colleges need to rethink where God wants their help to go. Send it to the Bishops who are over the HHS mandate law suits.

    • Josh

      You think “cripto jews” are bad? Try meeting a Jewish Crip in a dark alley. He’ll mess you up!
      Seriously, this involves the Jews how? Or, alternatively, What?!?!?

  • Tinemarie

    FUS is my alma mater, and I am so proud!



  • Feeneyja

    And they joined the whopping 43 Catholic institutions represented in 12 separate lawsuits filed against the HHS Mantadte today.

    You can see the statement by Fr. Henry of Franciscan on this page:

    • Guest

      Believe it not, Notre Dame makes 44 now!

  • TeaPot562

    An early news story mentioned that premiums paid by students at Franciscan U would approximately DOUBLE under the Health Reform Act currently being installed. Why does the story above not mention that? Or was my info on the students’ premiums approximately doubling not accurate?

  • Flo_over

    It’s not like there aren’t affordable health insurance plans out there for college students. Even NOT on Mommy and Daddy’s plan. Even if you are on scholarship and working 2 jobs plus school. Unless you have a constant problem there isn’t a huge need for major coverage. Why schools provided this in the first place is beyond me. Teach your students to go out and, oh I don’t know, FEND FOR THEMSELVES. Isn’t that what college is about? Education and learning to function in something akin to the real world?

  • tnb

    Oh forget the post….What do mean Loki was right?

    • Cjwainscott

      She refers to Loki’s commentary briefly after assaulting a gathering of humans and insisting that they kneel before him. He says, “Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation.” His commentary is poignant in the face of a culture of militant atheism…and represents a backwards expression of Truth (thanks Joss Whedon!). That is to say, although Loki is a demi-god or lowercase god of a fictional realm, he is correct in stating that the natural disposition of humans is to kneel in worship. Of whom? Well, of course that is hashed out in Scripture – “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bend, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.” – Phillippians 2:9-10

  • Josh

    Lot of comments here which I didn’t read. Maybe this was addressed: what about employee plans? The mandate covers those too. Is Franciscan dropping employee coverage? I can’t find anything of substance on Franciscan’s (or any other Catholic institution-con-huevos’s) position on employee plans. Dropping student plans is small patatas compared with employee plans given the ease of other coverage available to most students.

    • Lina

      Josh, I don’t know about Franciscan, but I know that Thomas Aquinas College in California is dropping employee coverage, and imagine Franciscan is doing the same. TAC never had student coverage to start with – students there had to get their own.

  • RooForLife

    June 8,12 Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally Locations

  • Juan Crespo

    To quote Archbishop Fulton Sheen: “The ungodly like religion in the same way that they like lions, either dead or behind bars; they fear religion when it breaks loose and begins to challenge their consciences.”

    • Korou

      Lions don’t challenge our consciences.

      • Hcpugl

        but lions unleashed challenge your life (:

        • Korou

          Yes. So can religions; and our freedoms and rights. Which is why we fear them.

    • limbodog

      I have no problem with religion challenging my conscience. (Tho’ it rarely seems to do so) What I do mind is it trying to force me to follow its rules that have no purpose outside of that particular faith.

      Now I can understand that Catholics might feel this law is forcing them to pay for something they don’t want to use (like we all have to do) But what I don’t understand is why they wouldn’t just opt not to use that benefit. Can someone explain that to me?

      • Anonymous

        I believe it’s because the gov’t is trying to require that that benefit to be provided in an insurance plan. You can either offer insurance that provides contraceptives or don’t offer insurance at all. Hope that helped.

  • art

    I see that it started to head towards cost in the comments. Why can it not stay on the subject. I am a 62 year old 5 year convert, and attend seminars at Franciscan u. They are doing the right thing and I hope they are applauding Cr Dolan and the USCCB for their strength and back bone today.

  • John

    That was the best summary of the HEALTHCARE debate…it’s not healthcare at all but FREEDOM!

  • Jane Hartman

    Thank you Catholic Church, and Catholic bishops and Christian universities and others who are standing against this HHS mandate of tyranny. Thank you, Bad Catholic, for giving us such entertaining and thought provoking articles. I’m so glad to be a Christian and a Catholic Christian at that. God bless you!

  • Monte450

    Gods’ law is meant for our benefit not His! God Bless you all

  • Kelsey Kaufman

    Man, I have no idea who you are, but I dig this post. Preach brotha, preach.

  • Clearlysmarterthanyou

    You guys are incredible idiots. Thank God (haha) I’m not Catholic.

    • Marc Barnes

      Right? Good Lord (haha), the people here.

      • God

        Marc, fuck yourself- from God.

      • musiciangirl591

        marc, watch out dealing with him, he’s clearly smarter than you… :)

  • Guest

    It kind of sucks for people who can’t get insurance anywhere but through the university though.

  • Amanda Mathews

    CINCINNATI not CINCINATTI, it’s my hometown so I’m a little sensitive. all in all though, GREAT post, love your mix of harsh truth and humor.

  • Kristen indallas

    I’m jealous. That’s right, the chick with the good (secular) job that gives me a great plan which covers a whole bunch of stuff I have no use for who doesn’t have to worry about a thing when it comes to heathcare, but doesn’t exactly have the option of forgoing it either, is JEALOUS of the college student whose health plan was just dumped. Go figure THAT one out feminists…

  • Merke3

    I am so bummed i missed your talk at ToT Cincinnati! I was busy saving lives and delivering babies at Ohio’s #1 hospital for baby delivery. But still wished I could’ve been there because I LOVE your blog

  • Kaitlin

    snaps- this made me laugh and was really well done. You’re kinda awesome. Keep it up!

  • Renee M. Kling

    Love the post and loved hearing you speak at TOT Cincy :)

  • Cheryl Tay

    I’m a little late to the party here but I applaud Franciscan’s decision not to compromise its Catholic beliefs. As a Catholic, I understand the Church’s stance on contracption, though I do not agree fully with it. My boyfriend – also a Catholic – & I have agreed that should we not be ready for kids after marriage, or when we’ve had enough kids, we will use contraception, because a married couple’s physical expression of love shouldn’t be hampered by the fear of being unable to properly raise a child – or any other reason: infertility, impotence, menopause etc.

    But I am honestly offended by Obama’s permissive & yet insistent insurance laws, which basically require Catholics to compromise their faith. In a country purported to be democratic, legalizing religious compromise / oppression is unacceptable. Why should Catholic schools or organizations be coerced into including contraceptives under their health insurance plans? Is a person incapable of buying his / her own contraceptives? Obama seems to only be interested in popular votes, i.e. from the growing number of antagonistic atheist types who take any & every opportunity to slam religion (Catholicism in particular), even at the expense of freedom of religion.

  • limbodog

    Why do they need to remove coverage for a benefit that none of them will ever use because they are good faithful catholics?

  • Joseph Mendes

    What do you use to make these graphics which I find greatly entertaining?

  • Me2

    He already made his move. Everyone is mandated to have an insurance plan, and insurance plans required to cover contraceptives. So if theyre not getting it from the university they are getting it elsewhere, or being fined for not having insurance.

  • Fiona

    We need a place like this in Ireland………………LOL

  • Inara Howard

    YES! Someone else got the Loki quote!! (I knew it would be you)…” It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.” Lots of truth in that little monologue…

    and, of course, the rest of this post is awesome (even though your choice of clip art generally creeps me out).

  • Kevin Stetter

    not sure if others have chimed in, but loki was only right in that humans we made to ‘be subjugated’…..or in other words, made to be worshippers…just not worshipping him, but rather the God-Man who doesn’t dress like that.

  • Musiciangirl591

    good for Franciscan for standing up for what they believe in! i’ll be sure to go to more FOPs from now on :)

  • Penny Farthing1893

    Awesome post! But Loki was only right in the overall scheme of things – if he was God or instituted by God, but he’s just some dude. So Captain America and that old guy in Germany were right. And yes, Avengers was awesome.

  • Lukedehon

    No the old man in the crowd got it right, he said “not to men like you”

  • Brad

    your blog is awesome keep it up! GO BARONS!