fbpx
Search Results For:

Search Results for: hospital – Page 15

Newly defined and vigorously enforced rights have proliferated even as they are uprooted from any philosophic grounding.
Suggestions to end conscience protection ignore the importance of conscience and rely on a circular—and baseless—understanding of a woman’s “right” to abortion. Following such suggestions would be detrimental to the entire health care system.
The practice of socially responsible investing, often associated with opposition to apartheid or support for environmental causes, can also be a way to battle the harms of pornography.
Custom and tradition, far from being necessarily irrational, are often the vehicles of guiding and binding reason.
A new resolution before Europe's leading human rights council attacks conscience and community.
The new health care law has endangered longstanding protections on conscience. We must act to address them or risk creating a dangerous precedent.
The nature of children’s education matters to jihadists. It should matter to us, too.
The choice the country faces in health-care reform is a stark one with profound ramifications: What process will best deliver affordable quality health-care to all Americans, a government-driven or market-driven one?
Having spent 20 years wrongly diagnosed as in a persistent vegetative state, Rom Houben reminds us that disabled persons are capable of many more substantive opportunities for human fulfillment than we are initially inclined to believe. But is bodily life just as such worth preserving? Can care-givers rightly remove hydration and nutrition?
Calls for health-care reform confuse the basic right to healthcare and a desire for healthcare that is in all ways equal.
Can the divide between the Liberal Arts and the Sciences be bridged by beauty?
The real health-care debate isn’t whether we should have reform, but which type of reform to pursue: good reform versus bad reform. A senior economist explains how we can make high quality health-care available to all.
Millions of Americans believe that states can prohibit abortion in the third trimester, yet current Supreme Court jurisprudence has manufactured a right to unfettered abortion right up to the time of the child’s birth. How did Americans become so confused on this issue and how did the Supreme Court end up where it has?
Recently, the editor of Public Discourse sat down with Robert P. George to discuss the state of the marriage debate. While supporters of same-sex “marriage” claim that history is on their side, it turns out that supporters of traditional marriage have more reasons for hope than they may realize.
From the Clinton Administration to Nancy Pelosi, American family-planning policy continues to preserve the eugenicist principle that America would be better off if poor children were never conceived. In fact, Clinton tied Medicaid funding to state promises that it would save the government money in the long run by “averting births” of children who were likely to be a drain on the welfare system. But there is an alternative. The third in a three-part series.
The senators who originally designed our family planning policies believed that the mostly black welfare population was incurably lazy, promiscuous, intellectually substandard, and a burden on public schools, and, moreover, that they probably would remain so indefinitely. Birth control, therefore, was in their eyes a way to reduce the number of these undesirable people. This article is the second installment in a three-part series.
A recent compromise on the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate granted too much to revisionists and too little to traditionalists. A better compromise will respect the societal importance of marriage while also providing for the real needs of domestic partners.
Michael New's criticism of a recent study has come in for criticism itself. He responds that the study suffers from methodological mistakes and faulty presentation.
The author of a recent abortion study answers Michael New's criticisms.
Social Conservatives in America would do well to consider recent events in the U.K.
Marriage between a man and a woman is rooted in our nature--"in biology, not bigotry"--sex between men and women makes babies, society needs babies, and babies need a father as well as a mother. But the proponents of same-sex marriage want the government to declare in law that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex unions, and anyone who thinks otherwise is promoting bigotry. This will have major ramifications for those who believe in marriage in the traditional sense--especially religious citizens and organizations.
Catholics in Alliance recently released a study questioning the effectiveness of pro-life legislation and arguing that greater spending on welfare programs was a better strategy for reducing abortion. Unfortunately, their study is seriously flawed. Rigorous analysis of their own data indicates that increased welfare spending only has little to no impact on abortion. Public funding restrictions and informed-consent laws, however, are effective at reducing abortion rates.
Obama's latest excuse for opposing the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is that the law was "unnecessary" because babies surviving abortions were already protected. It won't fly.