Loyola Marymount University has fiercely debated the question whether LMU should cover elective abortion in its insurance for employees. (Recently, Jesuit Father Michael Engh, S.J., excluded abortion insurance coverage at Santa Clara University, where he serves as President.) The student newspaper, the “Loyolan,” reported that 180 LMU faculty signed a letter urging that LMU should provide abortion coverage. On the other side, RenewLMU.com, a group of faculty, alumni, students, donors, and friends seeking to bolster LMU's Catholic identity, collected nearly 500 signatures online urging LMU to exclude insurance coverage for abortion.The Board of Trustees decided that, "we believe that the right to life and dignity for every human being is a fundamental part of Catholic beliefs (all other rights flow from this primary right to life and dignity), and that this vision needs to be evidenced in LMU’s policies and procedures. Thus, the Board decided that LMU’s principal insurance plans in 2014 will not provide coverage for elective abortions." However, the LMU Board also added that, "a Third Party Administrator (TPA)-managed plan will be available. The TPA will be selected very shortly in order to facilitate an alternative. The TPA-managed plan will cover elective abortions, for which an employee will pay a slightly higher premium." After the decision, faculty, staff, and others in the LMU community remain divided.Faculty in favor of including abortion as part of the standard insurance argue that respect for the consciences of others in the diverse LMU community means that LMU should include elective abortion in its insurance coverage. “Indeed, arranging for a third party to carry out an act of injustice is itself an act of injustice.”However, respect for the conscientious judgment of others does not require acting to facilitate people making choices that accord with these judgments. Respect for conscience involves refraining from manipulating, coercing, or otherwise attempting to force people to change their beliefs, but it does not involve cooperating, facilitating, or aiding others in carrying out actions based on their beliefs. Respect for conscience does not mean facilitating the choices of those with whom we disagree in conscience. Faculty in favor of including abortion coverage as part of the primary insurance also argue that many non-Catholics and dissenting Catholics work at LMU, so the university should not force these employees to adhere to Catholic teaching and "chill" their free speech on the abortion issue. However, all LMU employees enjoy freedom of religion, and therefore no LMU employee is forced to adhere to Catholic beliefs or practices. LMU employees can and do advocate for abortion rights. In this decision, LMU does nothing whatsoever to prevent faculty or staff from choosing elective abortion. Individuals working at LMU can (and may have) chosen to get abortions. Abortion is a legal right in the United States, but this legal right does not create legal or moral duties for others to pay for or otherwise facilitate abortion. In a similar way, a person’s right to free speech is not violated if the University refuses to make that person a commencement speaker, pay for his or her books to be published, or let them address the incoming first year students. Unfortunately, the Board's decision includes making available insurance coverage for elective abortion through a third party. This is morally problematic. The Board’s decision is something like saying, "Since I believe abortion is intentional killing, I won’t drive you to the abortion clinic; but I’ll call my brother to drive you to the clinic, if you pay him a few bucks.” Such arrangements do not result in clean hands. Arranging for a third party to carry out an injustice for you does nothing to change your ethical responsibility for that injustice. Indeed, arranging for a third party to carry out an act of injustice is itself an act of injustice. The Board took a strong stand in the first part of their decision. In the second part of their decision, this strong stand was undermined. They decided to make available a third party to facilitate what they themselves view as an injustice against the dignity of the human person. What the Board gave with their right hand they took away with their left. LMU’s decision reminds me of a quotation from the late, great Roger Ebert, “I consider myself Catholic, lock, stock and barrel, with this technical loophole: I cannot believe in God.” We consider abortion abhorrent, yet we have decided to facilitate it via a third party.One bright spot in the controversy is that since coming to LMU in 1998, I’ve never found the campus discussion about Catholic identity and mission to be more robust than it has been over the last few weeks. Jesuits, alumni, RenewLMU, “The New York Times,” students, faculty, and staff all participated. Perhaps everyone involved in the controversy can agree that at least this widespread discussion about what Catholic mission and identity means at LMU is a good thing.Dr. Christopher Kaczor is Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University and the author of “The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church.”
