My NRO Interview – “Abortion and Human Equality: How to return the debate to the essential questions 41 years after Roe.”

DefendingLife

That's the title of Kathryn Jean Lopez's interview of me in today's National Review Online. Here's how it begins:KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: What are your thoughts as D.C. is about to see a March for Life against 41 years of legal abortion in America?FRANCIS J. BECKWITH: Even though the advocates of the belief that unborn life lacks moral status have had over four decades to completely inoculate the wider culture from the sanctity-of-life ethic (through the media, the academy, and … [Read more...]

“Baylor University Scholar Francis Beckwith Will Speak at Vatican Educational Conference”

199553

From Baylor media communications: WACO, Texas (April 22, 2013) -- Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D., a professor of philosophy at Baylor University and Resident Scholar in Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion, will travel to Rome in mid-June to speak at The Celebration of Evangelium Vitae: Faithful to Life conference, sponsored by the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization.Beckwith is one of three speakers invited to speak at the event, to be held June … [Read more...]

My Two Part Series on Roe v. Wade, and an extensive critique of Roe

To commemorate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (22 January 2013), this month I have published a two-part series over at The Catholic Thing. You can find each part at the following links:Roe at Forty, part 1: The Court’s Failure to Address the Question of the Unborn’s Moral Status Roe at Forty, part 2: The Court’s Two Unwarranted StipulationsEven though many citizens reject  Roe v. Wade, not many know why it is so flawed. The above pieces present very brief summaries of some of thos … [Read more...]

Roe at Forty, part 2: The Court’s Two Unwarranted Stipulations

Two weeks ago, I published over at The Catholic Thing part 1 of my two part series to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Roe. v. Wade (22 January 2013): "Roe at Forty, part 1: The Court’s Failure to Address the Question of the Unborn’s Moral Status." Part 2 was published today. Entitled, "Roe at Forty, part 2: The Court’s Two Unwarranted Stipulations," here's how it begins: Not only did Roe v. Wade’s majority opinion fail to address the question of whether the unborn human being is a moral subj … [Read more...]

“Potential Persons” in the “After-Birth Abortion” Article

9780521691352

This is my latest over at The Catholic Thing. Here's how it begins: As readers of The Catholic Thing are well aware, the Journal of Medical Ethics, a periodical to which I have contributed, recently published the controversial article, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”, written by the philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.Throughout the article, the authors refer to fetuses and newborns as “potential persons,” which, I am sure, sounds like an odd neologism for … [Read more...]

We Are All Imbeciles Now: The HHS Regulations and the Specter of Buck v. Bell

national-review-online-logo

That's the title of a piece I published earlier this week over at Bench Memos on National Review Online. Here's how it begins: In the 1927 case Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia statute that allowed the “superintendent of certain institutions” to order the sterilizations of “feeble-minded” persons who were under the care of these state institutions, if the superintendent“shall be of opinion that it is for the best interests of the patients and of society that an inmate under … [Read more...]

Archbishop Chaput: “HHS mandate insulting and dangerous”

Archbishop_Charles_J_Chaput_at_the_March_for_Life_in_Washington_DC_EWTN_US_Catholic_News_2_10_12

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia had this to say in this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services refused on Jan. 20 to broaden the exception to its mandate that nearly all Catholic employers must cover contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization in their health-care plans.An "accommodation" offered Friday by the White House did not solve the problem. Instead, it triggered withering criticism from legal scholars such as Notre Dame's … [Read more...]

HHS “compromise” is Unacceptable, says former Vatican ambassador, Catholic University of America president, and others

Obama_Birth_control-300x196

(HT: Catholicvote.org)The following public letter was issued today by Mary Anne Glendon (former United States Ambassador to the Vatican), John Garvey (President, Catholic University of America), Princeton scholar Robert P. George, Notre Dame law professor Carter Sneed, and Yuval Levin of the Ethics & Public Policy Center. Right now the letter is being circulated and in the process of acquiring many more signatories. I am proud to say that I signed it only moments ago when it was sent to … [Read more...]

Not a Good Argument for the HHS Birth Control Mandate

delete

In response to the new HHS regulations, about which I have written several entries (see below), some have responded by pointing out that most Catholics practice birth control in defiance of the teachings of their Church. I've got news for you: Catholics also commit adultery, lie, cheat, steal, and sometimes even become Protestant. I suspect that there are also Mormons who drink coffee, Orthodox Jews who sneak bacon bits on their salads, and Southern Baptists who make the occasional visit to … [Read more...]

My critique of Roe v. Wade and its progeny

Sunday, January 22, is the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (1973). Even though many citizens reject the opinion, not many know why it is so flawed. In chapter 2 of my 2007 book, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press), I offer a detailed analysis of Roe and some subsequent Supreme Court opinions. An earlier version of that chapter was published in 2006 (1.1, pp. 37-72) in the inaugural issue of the Liberty University Law Review under the title … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X