I’m an alumus of FUS and I guess the next step is to stop health care coverage for employees, so on and so forth. That would be an interesting slippery slope it would also be very “Franciscan” of them, actually. They have one hell of a rugby team (3rd in the nation this year) and I played rugby there for four years using my student health care. I was a scholarship student and didn’t have other insurance options. Nonetheless the actual coverage was awful, so it might not really matter that much. I see that they will provide athletes with coverage of some kind, so it’s not a universal ban, which, again, shows that this a selective move for non-pragmatic purposes. It’s a PR campaign; a very wise publicity stunt for FUS that will grow their modest coffers from Republican and so-called conservative Catholics, that have become their biggest constituents. No longer is FUS the home of the Charismatic Renewal, it is now angling at becoming the Liberty University for Catholics. The parents who can pay tuition will also surely carry their own kids on healthcare plans that ALREADY provide many of those objectionable things and have for some time. Non-athlete students who cannot afford other coverage will not have any recourse whatsoever, which might show the other side of the issue for Catholics: providing for the sick and the poor. Sadly, FUS has been doing this type of PR campaign for a while now (the president appeared on Glen Beck some time ago) and it seems to be a good, viable business plan for them. Not much different from other ideologically committed institutions, but not a representative sample of the Catholic Church across the world, from East to West. I remain happy with my experience there as an undergraduate, but also wish they would try and emulate a more holistic, authentic Catholicism.

If FUS cared about their students, they would wait on the courts. I GUARANTEE the mandate will be stopped by the courts before it goes into effect. (In fact, I think SCOTUS is about to strike down the whole health care law.) And yes, I think this is a publicity stunt.

Dropping the student plan and keeping the employee plan - and calling it some sort of moral stake in the ground.  Than is beyond hypocritical!  What a joke that school is.

Guys, this sure as heck isn’t a publicity stunt. As a current student there I can tell you first, they did NOT expect the media backlash that has occurred and secondly, it’s far more to do with economic than the moral issue, though they like to say that played into it.
The health coverage they are being asked to provide- first of all- would need to include contraceptives. That’s morally wrong, and you all know that.
Secondly, it would cost the students a lot. For, as Sam Rocha said, “awful” coverage, it would cost double this year what it did in the past- and that’s to the expense of the student. Next year it’s expected to triple.  Again, the entire financial burden is on the student.
Be aware that this effects a small minority of the school’s population. Not even 10%.
By forcing students to either remain on their parents’ plan or shop around for a more affordable one that actually has decent coverage, they are practically doing students a favor.
All while beneficially maintaining their true Catholic identity by not giving into the HHS mandate.
Sorry, but I don’t see what the problem is here, and quite frankly, I’m proud of my school for the action it has taken.

Just to clarify the University will no longer require its students to buy health insurance. The University thinks it is wrong to force students in these tough times to double their expenses. The University will not be complicit with the governments forced increase of insurance costs. The moral problem with the HHS mandate are a huge problem for both employees and students in the near future, but the plan for students was a requirement the university established that would have negative impact on the students now. The affordable healthcare act is making it unaffordable for our students. So the University opted out of requiring our student to buy insurance but offer an essentially free clinic on campus to meet their basic healthcare needs. Because the university is not requiring our students to buy the health insurance, we can get a health provider to give us a group plan to offer.

Thanks so much for the clarity Michael and Emily.  It is good to know it isn’t a publicity stunt, I guess.  My sons both go to Catholic university - but they are not having the access to insurance taken away from them (it wouldn’t matter since they are on my plan anyway).  So I wonder why FUS can’t afford it?

Michael, you say now you are free to choose a group plan.  You have always been free to find a group plan.  In fact the student’s have been on FUS’ group plan, it was just that FUS chose to provide an “awful” one.  If you go to the market now and try to find insurance for yourself, you’re going to be overwhelmed by the cost.

If you think access to a clinic is a replacement, what happens if you have a major medical illness?  I’m assuming they don’t have a cancer treatment center on campus.  What you would do, if you only had a clinic and didn’t have the affordable care act helping you to stay on your parent’s plan for a longer time - is you would go on Medicaid.  Government insurance that pays for abortions, contraception, etc…..

I am very willing to concede that this was not a publicity stunt at the beginning, but the press release and media from the University suggest otherwise. I just got my “Franciscan Way” (the alumni magazine) and gave a talk there in the Spring; and I saw then and now that the HHS mandate is something they FUS is really hanging its hat on these days. And for many serious, good reasons, by the way.

I know that the employee health insurance is nothing to write home about—it is a major sacrifice for professors who honorably work there despite of the overall low pay and mediocre benefits—and I understand that the student cost issue was probably the a major motivation (which, as one commenter suggested, might lead the students left out applying for contraceptive-funding medicaid).

This would be very much in line with the odd mix of politics and lifestyle I witnessed at FUS during my time, a time when many of the most ardent, small government Republicans lived in the government subsidized housing that is adjacent to the University. (Literally, they were called the “projects.”) The University benefited greatly from this housing arrangement, although it never, to my knowledge, endorsed it.

In the end, I think that Emily is right: this did not begin, primarily, as a publicity stunt. But it is very hard to argue with the fact that is has become one now, on both sides. I’ve had many proud friends and family phone me to say how awesome and principled it is that FUS is sticking it to Obama and the liberals. Sadly, they are just as misinformed as many of the those who are equally as outraged about it all.

Sam Rocha is correct; FUS is doing this as a publicity stunt to show they’re the most Catholic university in the country.  Many other schools are looking at their plans, but since SCOTUS is currently examining the constitutionality of Obamacare, they are waiting to see what the actual state of the law is before making any determination as to insurance contracts.  Many Catholic colleges have dropped their requirement that all full-time students have health insurance as a response to the mandate, but as I said, since the fate of the law is uncertain they are being prudent.

Praying for compassionate, openly available, non-judgmental, teaching of viable options, for those who find unplanned pregnancy too difficult to live with. Driving their car, self and unborn child over a cliff, to escape the lack of compassion, has screamed, in the past, that we did not have it right. Begging you, make the greatest thing they remember, Love.