|
215 Centennial Mall South, Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508-1813; 402-477-7517; nebrcc@neb.rr.com
|
|
Nebraska C C:
James R. Cunningham
NCC Statements & Current Issues
Medical Treatment Decision-making
USCCB
Capitol Correspondent: ********* PRO LIFE:State Director
Life Insight:
Program Models
Education:Associate Director of Education Issues
|
Life Insight 2009, Part II
Regent’s Rationale Distorts Truth (12-18-09) Thank and Encourage Sen. Nelson (12-11-09) Shame on NU (12-04-09) Giving Thanks and Witness Through Service (11-27-09) Will Regents Encourage Ethical or Unethical Research? (11-20-09) Another Conversion (11-13-09) 40 Days for Life (11-06-09) High Tech Exploitation of Vulnerable (10-30-09)
Pro Life Protections Needed in Healthcare Reform
(10-23-09) Three Champions for Life (10-09-09) Every Child Brings Us God’s Smile (10-02-09) Twenty Five Years of Hope and Healing (9-25-09) Helpers of God’s Precious Infants(9-18-09) Empowering Women to Choose Life (9-11-09) One Life Spared (9-4-09) Healthcare Reform Must Respect All Human Life (8-21-09) Pro Life Conference Will Inform and Inspire (8-07-09) Abortions Increase in 2008 (7-24-09) Late-Term Abortions in Nebraska?(7-10-09)
Life Insight 12-18-09 Regent Jim McClurg has been using a false rationale to explain his flip flop in voting against a resolution to prohibit expansion of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) at the University of Nebraska. In last Monday’s issue of the Omaha World Herald, a rebuttal was provided by Julie Schmit-Albin (Nebraska Right to Life), Dr. Sheryl Pitner (Nebr. Coalition for Ethical Research) and me. Here are some excerpts of that rebuttal: “Regent Jim McClurg cast the decisive vote based on misrepresentations of Legislative Bill 606 and the position of our groups in supporting it. McClurg declared that he would not support a resolution to limit ESCR because LB 606 “created a platform” for expansion of ESCR supported by all parties to the negotiation [on this bill]…” “What nonsense. There’s no way our groups, the governor — who got the sole endorsement of Nebraska Right to Life in 2006 — and 30-some state senators on our side would have supported LB 606 if it had contained even a hint of support for expanded ESCR, never mind a ‘platform.’ “Since 2001, the regents’ policy on ESCR has been to follow federal guidelines. During this time, our groups urged the Legislature several times to set stricter ethical boundaries in state law. Those efforts resulted in passage of LB 606 (in 2008) which banned human cloning and destruction of human embryos at state facilities. “The compromise that produced LB 606 was based on the Legislature remaining neutral on expansion of ESCR. LB 606 did not create a permission slip for NU to expand ESCR…Perhaps McClurg resorted to such a disingenuous rationale because he had repeatedly assured constituents and our groups that he opposed expanded ESCR. “He ran successfully for the office in 2006 with a crucial endorsement by Nebraska Right to Life based on his opposition to ESCR. This spring, after President Obama’s announcement that he would broaden federal funding guidelines for ESCR, McClurg sent constituents this message: ‘I believe that the current policy of the Board of Regents regarding this issue is appropriate and I will vote to sustain our position of not doing any embryonic stem-cell work on cell lines created after August of 2001. There is much wonderful research going on in stem cells that does not require the destruction of embryos, I believe that the destruction of embryos is not necessary or appropriate for the conduct of good and important research, and the research funding and impact at the University of Nebraska Medical Center has been growing dramatically since 2001 with this policy in place.’ “In July, McClurg advised our groups to show “sharper teeth” in pressing the regents to act. That was one of numerous meetings over the past year in which McClurg confirmed his opposition to expanded ESCR. “But this fall, with the regents focusing on a resolution to limit ESCR as described in McClurg’s message above, McClurg announced he was undecided. He gave no explanation and declined to meet with us. “McClurg’s own words convict him of deceit. His message in the spring, quoted above, was one year after passage of LB 606. He knew LB 606 did not settle the expansion issue. That’s why he was telling constituents he would vote to block expansion. “To justify his betrayal, McClurg joined our adversaries in promoting the false claim that LB 606 endorsed expanded ESCR and we supported it. This has created the [false] impression in the public record that we, the governor, and a majority of state senators said yes to expanded ESCR at NU. That’s why this issue is still burning.” Jim McClurg is not the only regent whose dishonest rationale on this vote needs to be exposed. Recently, a priest sent me a response he received after expressing (respectfully) his disappointment to Regent Kent Schroeder for his vote to allow expansion of ESCR. Schroeder responded with this doozy: “I too am disappointed that you want America to be a theocracy.” The ignorance and arrogance of Schroeder’s response is deplorable. It is shocking that a regent of our state university thinks that advocacy on behalf of the rights of nascent human beings is equivalent to the establishment of a theocracy. Life Insight 12-11-09 Thank and Encourage Sen. Nelson Last month, a coalition of nearly 40 pro-life Democrat Congressmen held firm in their position to oppose health care reform legislation unless it includes longstanding policies against abortion funding. As a result, the “Stupak” amendment (named after its Democratic sponsor, Bart Stupak) was adopted by a strong majority of House members. The Stupak amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion (except, sadly, in cases of rape, incest, or when a mother’s life is endangered). And it prohibits the use of low income tax subsidies to purchase health insurance that covers abortion. Contrary to the abortion lobby, it does allow individuals to use their own money to buy policies that cover abortion. The abortion industry and its acolytes became unhinged in their reaction to the House adopting the Stupak amendment. Several pro-abortion House members vowed to oppose the bill unless the Stupak amendment is removed. Thankfully, the “Stupak coalition” of pro-life Democrats is standing firm and they have enough votes to defeat health care reform legislation if the Stupak amendment is removed. Now, with health care legislation in the Senate, it is another pro-life Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson, who is taking the lead along with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch in pressing the Senate to adopt a Stupak-like amendment. Sen. Mike Johanns also deserves credit for pushing for pro-life language. The current Senate bill allows a government-run insurance option to cover abortions, and allows taxpayer subsidies to fund private insurance plans that cover abortion. Late last week, Sen. Nelson not only announced his intention to introduce a bi-partisan Stupak-like amendment but said he will join a filibuster of the bill if the amendment is not adopted. This is rather extraordinary when you consider that, as of this writing, Sen. Nelson is the only Democrat Senator willing to do this. He deserves our gratitude and encouragement for taking on this critical leadership role for the pro-life cause. As a member of the majority party whose vote is critical to the Democrats effort to pass health care reform, Sen. Nelson has substantial influence and power to get pro-life language adopted in the Senate bill. Unfortunately, because the Senate is dominated by pro-abortion Members, including many who claim to be Catholic, the Nelson-Hatch amendment is not likely to be adopted under ordinary circumstances. However, Sen. Nelson and pro-life groups are hoping that his promise to filibuster the bill without a pro-life amendment will force adoption of the amendment or scuttle the bill. There are, of course, other variables that could factor into this scenario. For example, there is a pro-abortion Republican or two (Sen. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine) who oppose the so-called “public option” in this bill but could support the bill if this is addressed to their satisfaction. Just one of them could replace Nelson’s vote and allow a bill without the Nelson-Hatch amendment to advance. Should this happen, the House and Senate bills will go to a conference committee. This committee includes members from each House who must reconcile the differences in the two bills and produce one bill that they think can pass both Houses. Whatever happens in the Senate regarding the Nelson-Hatch amendment, conference committee members will hopefully have to include a Stupak-like amendment in the final bill in order to get the votes necessary in the House to pass a final bill. In the coming weeks as health care legislation moves forward, it will be continue to be critical for Americans to speak up and insist that health care legislation excludes abortion funding and includes protections for the consciences of health care workers. Nebraskans are fortunate to have pro-life Members of Congress who are willing to lead on this issue, but we need to thank them and encourage them to stand strong for human life.
Life Insight 12-04-09 On November 20, the University of Nebraska Board of Regents rejected a resolution that would have prohibited expansion of human embryonic stem cell research (hESCR) at the University’s Medical Center (UNMC) in Omaha. This vote opens up another sad chapter in our state University’s stubborn and arrogant drive to blast through ethical boundary after ethical boundary. This saga began in the late 1990s when it was discovered that UNMC had been doing clandestine research with fetal tissue from induced abortions. In the public firestorm that ensued, UNMC defended its research by saying that the research was only using tissue that would otherwise be discarded and that it wasn’t causing more abortions. University officials also assured state senators that they just wanted to do fetal tissue research and had no plans to do hESCR and certainly not human cloning research. That assurance was shattered a few years later when the University announced that it did want to do hESCR and human cloning and then began a public relations and legislative campaign to oppose legislation banning these forms of research. In 2005, UNMC pushed the envelope further with its announcement that two researchers would begin doing hESCR. A policy adopted by the Board of Regents in 2001 allows such research but requires that it follow federal policy. From August of 2001 until March of 2009, federal policy was set by President Bush and it restricted federal funding of hESCR to stem cells harvested from embryos prior to August 9, 2001 (so our tax dollars would not be used to encourage the destruction of more embryos). In March of this year, President Obama rescinded the “Bush Policy” and opened up federal funding for hESCR using stem cells harvested since 2001 and henceforth. When UNMC announced that it would begin hESCR, one of the two researchers tried to assure Nebraskans that the “Bush lines” would be sufficient for the research they would be conducting. Once again, that assurance was quickly shattered when UNMC officials welcomed President Obama’s new policy and announced their intention to expand hESCR at UNMC. In response, pro-life groups asked the Board of Regents in March to adopt a new policy that would not allow an expansion of hESCR beyond the “Bush lines”. Five of the eight Regents were on record publicly in opposition to hESCR and all five of them provided assurances to pro-life groups and constituents that they would support such a policy change. In the end, only four regents (Tim Clare, Howard Hawks, Randy Ferlic and Bob Phares) supported the policy change. The fifth regent, Jim McClurg, flip-flopped and voted against the policy change along with regents Chuck Hassebrook, Bob Whitehouse and Kent Schroeder. Regent McClurg’s flip flop was deeply disappointing to pro-life groups and many of his constituents who were assured by him that he would vote to prohibit expansion of hESCR. I personally met with McClurg on multiple occasions and each time was assured that his support was solid and that he couldn’t imagine anything changing his mind. However, as the vote on the resolution neared, McClurg announced that he was undecided and he refused to meet with pro-life leaders to explain why he became undecided. When he announced at the November 20th meeting that he would oppose the resolution, he said it was LB 606 that caused him to flip flop. The Nebraska Legislature adopted LB 606 in 2008 to prohibit state facilities and funds from destroying a human embryo or producing an embryo through cloning. LB 606 does not ban the use of embryonic stem cells leaving it to the Regents to determine policy on hESCR. Before announcing his vote on November 20, Regent McClurg never once mentioned to pro-life groups or constituents that LB 606 was a factor in his decision, let alone the definitive factor. If it was such a big influence on his decision why was he telling groups and constituents earlier this year (a year after the bill passed) that he supported prohibiting expansion of hESCR? And why did he refuse to meet with pro-life groups to explain his epiphany before his vote? No matter how I look at it, Regent McClurg’s flip flop demonstrated a deplorable lack of integrity. Please thank the four regents who voted for the pro-life resolution and express your disappointment to the four who opposed it. Life Insight 11-27-09 (reprinted from 11-23-07) Giving Thanks and Witness Through Service “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them ‘ Go in peace, be warmed and filled, without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (Jas 2: 14-17). This passage from Scripture introduces the section (no. 87) in the encyclical “The Gospel of Life” in which Pope John Paul II presents mankind’s call and responsibility to serve the Gospel of life. “By virtue of our sharing in Christ’s royal mission,” says JP II, “our support and promotion of human life must be accomplished through the service of charity, which finds expression in personal witness, various forms of volunteer work, social activity and political commitment.” Unfortunately, in a secular culture dominated by radical individualism and materialism there is a strong inclination to view persons in need of our assistance and charity as impediments to our autonomy rather than opportunities to demonstrate our faith and love. A naval-gazing culture also tends to overlook God’s expectation that we give back to Him, in serving others, what we’ve been given; and that those to whom much is given, much will be expected. “We must care for the other,” says John Paul, “as a person for whom God has made us responsible. As disciples of Jesus, we are called to become neighbors to everyone (cf. Lk. 10:29-37) and to show special favor to those who are poorest, most alone and most in need. In helping the hungry, the thirsty, the foreigner, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned—as well as the child in the womb and the old person who is suffering or near death—we have the opportunity to serve Jesus. He himself said: ‘As you did it to one of the least of my brethren, you did it to me’ (Mt. 25:40).” “Hence we cannot but feel called to account and judged by the ever relevant words of St. John Chrysostom: ‘Do you wish to honor the body of Christ? Do not neglect it when you find it naked. Do not do it homage here in the church with silk fabrics only to neglect it outside where it suffers cold and nakedness.” John Paul II provides many examples of practical ways in which we can serve the Gospel of life through service of others: centers that promote and teach natural methods of regulating fertility, marriage and family counseling agencies, pregnancy-assistance centers and maternity homes, communities for treating drug addiction, residential communities for minors or the mentally ill, care and relief centers for AIDS patients, associations for solidarity especially for the disabled.” He also mentions the important work of social welfare agencies, palliative and hospice programs, hospitals, and convalescent homes. “A unique responsibility belongs to health care personnel: doctors, pharmacists, nurses, chaplains, men and women religious, administrators and volunteers. Their profession calls for them to be guardians and servants to human life.” Finally, John Paul II says that “[i]f charity is to be realistic and effective, it demands that the Gospel of life be implemented also by means of certain forms of social activity and commitment in the political field as a way of defending and promoting the value of life in our every more complex and pluralistic societies. Individuals, families, groups and associations…all have a responsibility for shaping society and developing cultural, economic, political and legislative projects which…will contribute to the building of a society in which the dignity of each person is recognized and protected and the lives of all are defended and enhanced.” In addition to fulfilling our call as Christians, when we serve those in need we give thanks to God for His blessings and we receive a therapeutic dose of love, grace and peace in return. Therapeutic? Yes, somehow when our focus is on the needs, pain, grief, and worry of others, our own concerns diminish or are at least placed into perspective. As we give thanks for all God has given us, let us examine how faithfully and generously we are returning His gifts through service to others, particularly His least ones. Life Insight 11-20-09 Will Regents Encourage Ethical or Unethical Research? This Friday, the University of Nebraska Board of Regents will apparently decide whether to prohibit the expansion of human embryonic stem cell research (hESCR) at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC). Although Regents may find compelling arguments on both sides of this debate, from an ethical perspective the most important question is this: “what is a human embryo?” Proponents of hESCR want to dismiss this as a religious question that can’t be definitively answered in a pluralistic society. The answer, however, isn’t found in theology textbooks, it’s found in science textbooks. And the science of human embryology unambiguously identifies the embryo, from its single-cell stage as “the beginning of a new human being.” Proponents of hESCR can’t deny this fact so they simply declare embryonic humans as inferior members of our human family, not deserving of moral status until they achieve some subjective criteria (size, level of development, etc.). This is high tech exploitation of the vulnerable by the powerful. As civilized societies have long recognized, the first principle of medical ethics (do no harm) prohibits the destruction of human life at any stage of development no matter how much medical promise such an act might produce. In fact, it was concern for this principle that prompted prominent stem cell scientists to develop an ethical way to get embryonic-like stem cells without producing or destroying embryos (so-called “induced pluripotent stem cells”). But, some argue, why not use fertility clinic embryos in research if they are otherwise destined for destruction? First, an ethically responsible society should, at a minimum, begin by questioning the ethics of producing, freezing and destroying “excess” embryonic human beings. Second, if it’s not ethical to vivisect humans “destined for destruction” at the fetal or later stages (e.g. abortion, death penalty, terminal illness) then why would it be ethical to do so at the embryonic stage? In a recent Omaha World-Herald editorial, Sanford Goodman, a proponent of hESCR, asserts that society’s acceptance of in vitro fertilization (IVF) is evidence that it accepts “embryo use”. Goodman cites the fact that some IVF embryos don’t survive after being transferred to the uterus. But with hESCR, embryos are intentionally destroyed for the purpose of research. With IVF, some embryos die naturally after being implanted with the intention and hope that they will survive. Regardless of one’s moral view of IVF (the Catholic Church teaches that it’s immoral), to give moral equivalence to these very different acts is a huge stretch and a breathtaking example of moral confusion. A few years ago when hESCR began at UNMC one researcher said: “With what we’re proposing to do, the available cell lines [approved under President Bush’s policy] should be adequate (Lincoln Journal Star, 2/3/05).” But now UNMC wants to expand this ethically divisive research even though science has found ethical ways forward. Non-embryonic stem cells are already helping patients with dozens of diseases like juvenile diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. And now induced pluripotent stem cells are helping to make destructive embryo research obsolete. Our elected representatives on the Board of Regents should draw ethical lines that discourage expansion of ethically divisive research and encourage expansion of research that we can all live with. Life Insight 11-13-09 When is the last time you heard about a director of a pro-life pregnancy-help center (or any pro-lifer for that matter) converting to the pro-abortion side? Probably never. Since 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared abortion to be legal with its Roe v. Wade ruling, there have been many pro-abortion leaders who have converted to the pro-life side. Two of the most prominent conversions are Dr. Bernard Nathanson and Norma McCorvey. Dr. Nathanson was an abortionist who did tens of thousands of abortions (including his own child). He was also one of the key figures in the effort to legalize abortion as a co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Norma McCorvey is the “Jane Roe” in the Roe v. Wade ruling. As she acknowledges, abortion activists used her to challenge Texas’s law prohibiting abortion and ultimately to strike down all state abortion laws. Even though Norma never had an abortion, she did work for several years in an abortion facility. Both of these prominent abortion activists have converted to the pro-life side (and both subsequently converted to Catholicism!) and have been very active in exposing the lies and evil of the abortion industry. And they are not alone. Joe Scheidler and his Pro-Life Action League has sponsored conferences featuring at least seven former abortionists who abandoned the practice of abortion. The most recent conversion, just a few weeks ago, was Abby Johnson, the director of a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Bryan/College Station, Texas. Ms. Johnson worked at the facility for eight years serving as its director for the last two. In public comments she made after resigning on October 6, she said, “Over the past few months I had seen a change in motivation regarding the financial impact of abortions and I reached my breaking point after witnessing a particular kind of abortion on an ultrasound.” In a report on FoxNews.com, Johnson said “[w]hen I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice.” But after seeing the internal workings of the procedure for the first time on an ultrasound monitor, “I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart…a spiritual conversion.” Speaking about the abortion she said, "I could actually see it was a 13 week old baby and I could actually see the side profile of the baby on the ultrasound. And I could see the cannula going into the uterus. And I could see the baby moving away from the cannula, trying to get away from the probe. I saw the baby crumple during the procedure, and that was just life-changing for me. I'd never seen that done before." Johnson also told FoxNews.com that she became disillusioned with her job after her bosses pressured her for months to increase profits by performing more and more abortions, which cost patients between $505 and $695. “Every meeting that we had was, ‘We don’t have enough money, we don’t have enough money—we’ve got to keep these abortions coming,’” she said. “It’s a very lucrative business and that’s why they want to increase numbers.” In last week’s column I mentioned some of the blessings of saved lives and conversions of heart connected to the 40 Days for Life campaign. This campaign promotes prayer, fasting and peaceful witnessing outside abortion facilities. I didn’t know at the time that the abortion facility Ms. Johnson directed was the site of the first 40 Days campaign! Ms. Johnson’s conversion is, I believe, another poignant example of God’s attempt to get our attention. He wants us to know—and believe—that “certain kinds of demons do not leave but by prayer and fasting” (Mt. 17:21). No matter what our situation is in life, we can—and must—pray and fast if we are serious about converting our society from a culture of death to a culture of life. Life Insight 11-6-09 In his encyclical The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II encourages us in the battle against the “culture of death” with the assurance that “we can rely on the help of God, for whom nothing is impossible. Filled with this certainty and moved by profound concern for the destiny of every man and woman,” John Paul says that: “A great prayer for life is urgently needed, a prayer which will rise up throughout the world. Through special initiatives and in daily prayer, may an impassioned plea rise to God, the Creator and lover of life, from every Christian community, from every group and association, from every family and from the heart of every believer. “Jesus himself has shown us by his own example that prayer and fasting are the first and most effective weapons against the forces of evil…Let us therefore discover anew the humility and the courage to pray and fast so that the power from on high will break down the walls of lies and deceit: the walls which conceal from the sight of so many . . . the evil of practices and laws which are hostile to life.” (EV no. 100) November 1st marked the end of “40 Days for Life”, a program designed to draw attention to the evil of abortion through the use of prayer and fasting, a constant vigil outside abortion centers, and community outreach. The fruit resulting from this program around the country is nothing short of miraculous. According to David Bereit, the national director of 40 Days for Life, during this fall’s campaign there were 534 reports of mothers who turned away from abortion appointments and spared the lives of their unborn children. And there were at least eight abortion center employees who quit their jobs. Furthermore, there are amazing stories of conversion or conviction by individuals who participated in this campaign. One of those featured by Mr. Bereit was of a man who participated by praying and fasting from home. Toward the end of the campaign he felt compelled to pray at a nearby abortion center. Here is his account of that experience: "I experienced a feeling unlike any I had ever experienced before," he said. "I had never been to an abortion clinic and now I was the only person there witnessing for the unborn babies. I felt a great deal of responsibility and at the same time a great surge of strength that made me want to publicly state my opposition to abortion. At that one point in time and at that location, I was the sole representative publicly proclaiming that abortion is wrong. I knew from that point on, that witnessing at abortion clinics was something I needed to do." In Nebraska, local pro-life groups in Lincoln and Omaha have sponsored this powerful project since it began a few years ago and the stories are equally amazing in both of these communities. In both communities there is evidence that the number of women who change their mind about the abortion increases during this campaign of prayer and fasting. For example, on one day at the Planned Parenthood abortion center in Lincoln, three women changed their minds and spared the lives of their babies. Not all that many years ago, I recall that maybe one such “save” would occur every month or two. Now, especially when there is a constant presence of prayer and fasting during the 40 Days campaign, it is common to have one or more mothers change their minds every day that abortions are done. Even for devout believers, it is tempting to underestimate the power of prayer and fasting and overestimate the effect of our own actions in opposing the culture of death. But our Lord, in His patience and faithfulness, shows us with efforts like 40 Days for Life that our prayers and fasting along with public witness can bear extraordinary fruit in saving and transforming lives. Life Insight 10-30-09 High Tech Exploitation of Vulnerable Last Friday, October 23, the University of Nebraska Board of Regents invited “public” input on whether or not it should allow the University to expand immoral human embryonic stem cell research (hESCR). I put quotations around the word public for a couple of reasons. First, the Board Chairman, Kent Schroeder, didn’t announce that the Board was soliciting public input until two days before its meeting and then required those wishing to speak to register no less than 24 hours before the meeting. Second, (and worse) the Chairman only allowed about one hour of public input which denied many people (from both sides) the opportunity to speak, even though they properly registered in advance and in some cases rearranged schedules and travelled from out of town in order to provide input. That sort of operation makes a mockery of public input. In my comments I said it is mystifying that University officials would consider further offending and alienating many Nebraskans by expanding hESCR, especially when pioneers in the field of embryo research are moving the research in an ethical direction. James Thomson, who pioneered hESCR and more recently discovered an ethical substitute (induced pluripotent stem cells) said this after that discovery: “The world has changed…It is the beginning of the end of the controversy that has surrounded this field…Over time, these [induced pluripotent stem] cells will be used in more and more labs. And human embryo stem cell research will be abandoned by more and more labs.” “The induced cells do all the things embryonic stem cells do. It's going to completely change the field. ….They are probably more clinically relevant than embryonic stem cells.” I also responded to some of the shameful and unsubstantiated scare tactics that have been used by University officials and their acolytes. For example, one often repeated claim is that if the regents don’t allow further expansion of hESCR, the University would be a laughingstock and wouldn’t be able to compete with other schools for research dollars and scientists. Those making this claim have, to my knowledge, never substantiated any such claims with objective data. I and others, however, have provided regents with objective data that seriously undermines the claim. For example, Georgetown University prohibits hESCR and yet it ranks significantly higher than Nebraska’s Medical Center (UNMC) in research funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Likewise, universities in Michigan, Virginia, Indiana, Pennsylvania rank substantially higher than UNMC in NIH research funding even though they reside in states that have laws restricting human embryo research and/or human cloning. Sadly, neither the media nor some of the Regents seem interested in challenging these claims made by the University about the impact of prohibiting the expansion of hESCR. For example, Regent Schroeder regularly challenges constituents who write to him to substantiate the successes made with non-embryonic stem cells. Perhaps he should be as challenging to those who make wild claims about the effect on the University if hESCR is not allow to expand. What has always been evident in the arguments made by University officials and their collaborators is that the University’s pursuit of funding trumps or at least severely disfigures its ethical considerations of hESCR. This was certainly the case at last Friday’s Regent meeting as two of the more notable testifiers for expanding hESCR were some of Omaha’s wealthiest philanthropists. Clearly, their presence was to remind the regents about how much money they’ve donated to the University. It now looks like the regents will vote on whether or not to prohibit expansion of hESCR at a special November 20th meeting. I’m afraid that given the influence of the University and its wealthy supporters, we will need to pull out all the stops to get the majority of regents to adopt a resolution prohibiting expansion of hESCR. In one of his most cogent public statements on this subject, Chip Maxwell from the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research referred to hESCR as “high tech exploitation of the vulnerable by the strong.” If this bothers you—and it should—then please contact your regent and respectfully urge him to prohibit expansion of embryonic stem cell research at the University. This can be done easily at www.ethicalresearch.net. If you’ve done this already then ask a friend or family member to do so. Life Insight 10-23-09 Pro Life Protections Needed in Healthcare Reform Congress will soon be debating and voting on healthcare reform legislation on the House and Senate floors. In the House, three committees have advanced different versions of what is called “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (HR 3200). In the Senate, two committees have advanced two different healthcare reform bills. The next step is for House and Senate leaders to combine their respective bills into one House and one Senate bill. Unfortunately, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has concluded that all five bills are seriously deficient, especially on the issues of abortion and conscience rights. None of the bills retains longstanding current policies against abortion funding or abortion coverage mandates, and none fully protects rights of conscience in health care. Expressing disappointment and concern about this deficiency, the USCCB wrote in an October 8 letter to members of Congress that “No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions no abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test,” the bishops stated. Punctuating the seriousness of these deficiencies, the bishops warn that “[i]f acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, [they] will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously.” “Catholic moral tradition teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential to protecting human life and dignity,” the bishops said in their letter. “Much-needed reform of our health care system must be pursued in ways that serve the life and dignity of all, never in ways that undermine or violate these fundamental values.” As they note in this letter, the bishops’ conference is working “tirelessly to remedy these central problems and help pass real reform that clearly protects the life, dignity and health of all.” However, the conference recognizes that those of us “in the field” have more influence on our members of Congress than they do. As a result, the bishops have issued an action alert urging all Catholics to contact our U.S. representatives and senators. Debate and voting is likely to occur in the senate first so it is particularly urgent that we contact Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns as soon as possible. Sen. Nelson’s office can be reached by phone at 202-224-6551 or by e-mail through his website at www.bennelson.senate.gov. Sen. Johanns’ office can be reached by phone at 202-224-4224 or by e-mail through his website at www.johanns.senate.gov. The message to communicate to them is this: “Please use your influence and do everything possible to ensure that the health care reform legislation is amended to incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and for conscience rights. If these serious concerns are not addressed in a corrective way, the final legislation should be opposed.” As the bishops said in this action alert, the “pro-life cause is at a crossroads. Policies adopted on abortion [in health care reform] will have an impact for good or ill for years to come.” Please take a few moments to make your voice heard on this critical matter. For further information on the health care reform debate and what the bishops have to say about it, go to www.nchla.org or www.usccb.org/prolife. Life Insight 10-16-09 Urge Regents to Draw Line on Immoral Research At their next meeting, October 23rd, the University of Nebraska Board of Regents may decide whether or not they will prohibit any further expansion of human embryonic stem cell research (hESCR) at the Medical Center in Omaha. Since last March when President Obama expanded federal funding for hESCR, pro-life groups in Nebraska have urged the Regents to prohibit such expansion in University labs. Until President Obama’s new policy was established, federal funding of hESCR was limited to stem cells harvested from human embryos prior to August 9, 2001, the date that President Bush established his policy. Although it had its own moral problems, Bush’s policy at least ensured that federal funds wouldn’t be used to encourage the destruction of human embryos since embryonic stem cells harvested after that date were ineligible for federal funding. President Obama’s policy, however, allows federal tax dollars to fund research using stem cells harvested from human embryos destroyed since 2001 and henceforth. Consequently, Obama’s policy would– for the first time – use taxpayer funds to directly encourage the killing of embryonic human beings for their stem cells. “This marks a new chapter in divorcing biomedical research from its necessary ethical foundation, respect for human life at all stages,” the U.S. Bishops said. “Embryonic stem cell research treats innocent human beings as mere sources of body parts, as commodities for our use.” In 2001, the Regents established their own policy that permits research using hESCs but limits such research to what the federal government allows. As a result, a small amount of hESCR has taken place at the Medical Center utilizing hESCs approved under President Bush’s policy. In March, when President Obama issued his new policy, University officials announced their desire to expand hESCR at the Medical Center. Since current University policy would allow such expansion in conformity with federal policy, pro-life groups are urging the Regents to change their policy to prohibit such expansion. It is profoundly offensive to a significant percentage of Nebraskans that our state university approves of, and is conducting, research using stem cells that came from embryonic human beings who were destroyed solely to use their body parts for research. The only consolation (under President Bush’s policy) has been that the University’s research was limited in a way that didn’t implicate Nebraskans in the destruction of human embryos (or encouragement thereof). That small consolation will end unless the Regents change the University’s policy to prohibit expansion of hESCR in University labs. Five of the eight Regents have expressed, in one way or another, their support for a new policy that would prohibit this expansion. However, Medical Center leaders and their acolytes are putting tremendous pressure on the Regents to allow expansion of hESCR. And they are using outrageous and unsubstantiated scare tactics to make their case. It is absolutely critical that the Regents hear from Nebraskans who are opposed to hESCR prior to their meeting on October 23rd. The simplest way to do this is to go to the website of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research at www.ethicalresearch.net. This website provides contact information for all eight regents as well as an opportunity to sign an online petition which will be given to the Regents prior to the October meeting. This same information is also available by calling my office at 402-477-7517. Life Insight 10-9-09 The Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities, initiated in 1975, activates the Church, its people and its institutions to defend the dignity of human life (particularly at its beginning) in a four-pronged approach: 1. Public Information and Education; 2. Pastoral Care; 3. Public Policy Program; and 4. Prayer and Worship. The Pastoral Plan prudently utilizes the formal structures of the Church to implement the program by recommending pro-life committees at the state, diocesan and parish level. My office and a state coordinating committee represent the state-level implementation of the Pastoral Plan. Each diocese in Nebraska also has a pro-life director who works with my office and directs activities specific to his diocese. Those directors are: Fr. Damien Cook (Archdiocese of Omaha); Fr. Jeff Eickhoff (Diocese of Lincoln); and Fr. Dave Rykwalder (Diocese of Grand Island). The third level of pro-life activity under the Pastoral Plan is coordinated by parish pro-life representatives. As the Pastoral Plan says, the parish pro-life representative “assists in a special way by helping to make the parish a center of life, a place where parishioners understand the issues and the importance of meeting the needs of those who are most vulnerable—especially mothers and their unborn children, and those who are seriously ill or dying and their families.” Parish pro-life representatives are essential to an effective pro-life program in the Church but are often unknown or at least under-appreciated. As a result, two years ago my office established the Gospel of Life award to recognize the exemplary efforts of a parish representative in each of the state’s dioceses to promote the Gospel of Life. At last Friday’s pro-life conference banquet, my office recognized the following parish representatives with the 2009 Gospel of Life Award: Archdiocese of Omaha Barb McPhillips is the parish pro-life representative for St. Anthony’s parish in Columbus. In addition to coordinating pro-life activities at her parish, she has served on the parish council and is a member of St. Theresa’s Sodality. Barb’s pro-life leadership goes beyond her parish to her community of Columbus and the state of Nebraska. She has held a number of leadership positions in Columbus Right to Life and Nebraska Right to Life. Barb and her husband Rich are the parents of four children and Barb also works as a nurse at the local hospital. Diocese of Lincoln Dan Hook is the parish pro-life representative for St. Mary’s parish in David City. Dan was adopted from an orphanage in 1931 at the age of five. When the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion with its Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, Dan reflected on his own birth and was motivated to get involved with the pro-life movement. He’s been active in the movement ever since In addition to his pro-life work at St. Mary’s, Dan has also held several leadership positions with Butler County Right to Life, Nebraska Right to Life, and the Knights of Columbus. As state pro-life chair for the Knights, Dan introduced the “Buck a Month” program which raises money each year for pro-life activities. Diocese of Grand Island Jerry Campbell is a parish pro-life representative for St. Patrick’s parish in North Platte. In this capacity, Jerry has coordinated a pro-life telephone tree, a pro-life float in the Nebraskaland Days Parade, and Life Chain. He also contributes financially to the pro-life pregnancy-help center in North Platte and to several other pro-life organizations. This year, Jerry organized his parish’s postcard campaign to Congress in opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act. His efforts on this project resulted in an impressive 2000 postcards being sent to Congress. It is not easy being a parish representative for the controversial and deeply emotional practice of abortion. These three individuals and their counterparts in parishes throughout the state deserve or praise, our thanks and our prayers. Life Insight 10-02-09 Every Child Brings Us God’s Smile “Every child…brings us God’s smile and invites us to recognize that life is his gift, a gift to be welcomed with love and preserved with care always and at every moment.” This quote from Pope Benedict XVI provides the theme to this year’s Respect Life Program produced by the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office. The Respect Life Program is produced annually to help dioceses and parishes to celebrate the dignity of human life throughout the year and particularly during October, which the U.S. Bishops’ established in the early 1970s as Respect Life Month. The program provides educational articles on a variety of current topics that impact the dignity of human life, liturgical and prayer resources and numerous suggestions for parish activity. The goal of the Respect Life program is to educate and inspire society to see every human life as an awesome miracle—an unrepeatable gift from God. The signature pamphlet in each year’s program strives to accomplish this goal in a concise and appealing way. This year’s pamphlet points out that “[t]he birth of one’s first child is the event most Americans cite as the ‘high point’ of their lives. New parents are understandably awed by the miracle of their new son or daughter. They are awed by a love that stretches their hearts almost to bursting, and awed (and a little terrified) by their responsibility to protect and nurture this precious life entrusted to them.” “Even on a literal level”, the pamphlet continues, “it’s clear that children are bubbling wellsprings of joy amidst the serious and sometimes stressful world of adults. Who is not moved by a toddler’s giggle fit?” “On a deeper level, every little boy and girl is a unique and irreplaceable creature designed by the God of love, his personal gift that comes to us bearing his image and likeness. While biological parents assist in God’s creative act, God contributes the child’s eternal soul—his or her intellect, consciousness, will, and the capacities to reason and love, to hope and aspire.” “Human beings have always sensed these truths,” the pamphlet says, “but the advent of contraception and the legalization of abortion brought about a widespread disdain for unborn children. In the United States over one million boys and girls are killed by abortion every year. “The bodies of many aborted children have been used in fetal research. Fertility clinics manufacture, freeze, and discard human embryos like biological products, and some scientists create and destroy little human beings for embryonic stem cell research.” These attacks against nascent human life have a devastating impact that leads our society to view human life as a burden or as a commodity to be produced, used and destroyed. And as the Respect Life pamphlet points out, many “Americans remain indifferent to the killing of these marvelous little boys and girls in fertility clinics, and laboratories, and in abortion facilities throughout all nine months of pregnancy”. “We must work with urgency to change our attitudes and laws,” the pamphlet concludes, “helping others to discover, celebrate, and cherish the miracle that is every human being, from the beginning of our life’s adventure at conception to our last breath before entering eternity.” My office and other pro-life groups provide many opportunities throughout the year for individuals to help change our society’s attitudes and laws regarding human life. This weekend provides a couple of great activities to get started. On Friday night and Saturday (October 2nd and 3rd) the annual Bishops’ Pro Life Conference will take place in Lincoln (call 402-477-7517 to register). On Sunday the annual Life Chain will be held in more than 50 communities around Nebraska (for a listing go to www.lifechain.net). Will you join me in promoting and defending human life? Life Insight 9-25-09 Twenty Five Years of Hope and Healing Last week I was privileged to attend the 25th anniversary celebration of Project Rachel, the post-abortion healing ministry of the Catholic Church. It was founded in 1984 in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee by Vicki Thorn and named after the Old Testament figure Rachel “who mourns her children, she refuses to be consoled because her children are no more" (Jeremiah 31:15). At the time, Mrs. Thorn was the Respect Life Director for the Archdiocese. She discovered that the U.S. Bishops urged the formation of a post-abortion healing outreach in their Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities. The Pastoral Plan, which is the program my office follows, was first issued by the Bishops in 1975 in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s legalization of abortion. Post-abortion outreach struck a very personal chord with Mrs. Thorn as she had been deeply touched by the abortion experience of a friend. This friend had relinquished her first child to an adoptive couple and then aborted her second child. The friend struggled intensely for many years after the abortion and told Vicki “I can live with the adoption. I can’t live with the abortion.” As Vicki describes on her website (www.noparh.org), Project Rachel was formed as a “diocesan based ministry…composed of a network of specially trained clergy, spiritual directors and therapists who provide compassionate one-on-one care to those who are struggling with the aftermath of abortion. Project Rachel is designed to provide confidential and skilled help to each individual who comes to the ministry.” Project Rachel is an outreach of the Catholic Church, but Mrs. Thorn established it to be open to those of any (or no) faith who are struggling after an abortion loss. “It is able to help women and men; parents, grandparents, siblings, friends and others whose lives have been impacted by an abortion loss”, she says. Project Rachel has spread very quickly around the country and is currently in 155 dioceses in the United States with more ministries forming. Coordinated through my office, Project Rachel was initiated in all three Nebraska dioceses in 1992. Shortly after I started this job (in 1991), Fr. Joseph Walsh from the Lincoln Diocese urged me to start Project Rachel. He had spent some time in St. Louis working on an advanced degree and lived with Fr. Joseph Naumann (now Archbishop of Kansas City, KS). As director of the Respect Life Office for the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Fr. Naumann had just started Project Rachel in the Archdiocese with the help of Mrs. Thorn. As I began to discuss Project Rachel with key individuals in each Nebraska diocese, I discovered that the Family Life Office for the Archdiocese of Omaha had also been talking about starting the ministry. A short time later, we brought Fr. Naumann and Vicki Thorn to Nebraska to train priests, religious and professional counselors in all three dioceses on how to identify and heal the psychological, emotional, and spiritual aftermath of abortion. There are currently about 60 priests, religious and professional counselors throughout Nebraska who are trained and available to help women and men who call the statewide Project Rachel number (800-964-3787). The Rachel phone line is answered by professionals at Catholic Social Services in Lincoln who provide an initial assessment, on-going counseling as needed or, if the client wishes, a referral to a Rachel priest/counselor closer to the client’s home. There is no charge for the initial counseling session. If extended professional counseling is needed, fees are based on the client’s ability to pay. Project Rachel is a vital component of the Church’s pro-life efforts. Communicating God’s infinite mercy to those wounded by abortion and helping them to heal emotionally and spiritually is saving many souls. Hundreds of women and men have been helped in Nebraska alone. Project Rachel embodies the consoling words of the Prophet Jeremiah to Rachel: “Thus says the Lord: Cease your cries of mourning. Wipe the tears from your eyes. The sorrow you have shown will have its reward. There is hope for your future” (Jeremiah 31: 16-17). Life Insight 9-18-09 Helpers of God’s Precious Infants This year’s pro-life conference (October 2nd and 3rd) will include a panel of amazing people who empower women to choose life. The panel will feature representatives from two of Nebraska’s pregnancy-help agencies (one rural and one urban) to explain the incredible work they do to assist pregnant women before and after birth. Last week’s column explained this work in detail. The panel will also feature representatives from groups that provide the last line of defense in saving women and their babies from abortion: sidewalk counselors. One of those groups is Helpers of God’s Precious Infants (Helpers). Founded by Msgr. Philip J. Reilly, Helpers is a “group of people committed to maintaining a loving and prayerful presence outside of the abortion mills, where God's children are put to death. According to their website, Helpers “unite [them]selves with these victims in solidarity with their pain, as they are put to death at this modern day Calvary. They “pray in reparation for the injustice being performed on their tiny bodies. Just as Mary and John lovingly stood and prayed beneath Jesus' Cross as he died, [Helpers] wish to remain with these children in the hour that they we crucified.” Helpers “pray to obtain God's mercy for the abortionist and his staff who do the killing. The message of the Helpers…to the abortionist and all who help him to kill God's children is that, though we love them, we will never accept what they do.” Helpers “plead with our voices for the lives of the babies being carried in by the pregnant women who have scheduled appointments with the abortionist that day. [They] ask each mother to change her mind. [They] reach out to her with the love of Christ; [and] do not judge nor condemn her for what she is planning to do.” Helpers “simply promise her support and assistance if she should change her mind, and prayers for her healing and conversion if she should proceed with the killing of her child. “Most of all, [Helpers] love the unborn children who will be brought there that day. These children have been rejected by their parents, and are doomed to die. The only human love they may ever encounter in their short lives may be from those of us standing outside.” There are three ways that individuals can participate in the mission of the Helpers. 1. “The Prayers come to the abortion mill to pray for an hour or more, on any morning that the babies are going to be killed. They carry on a most important spiritual battle, as they stand outside the mill. They pray in a spirit of reparation: for their own sins; the sin of abortion; and particularly for the deaths that will occur while they stand outside on that day. They pray for women going into the abortion mill: for the abortionist and his staff;” and others. 2. “The Sidewalk Counselors … approach the woman going in to have the abortion and ask her to reconsider her decision…The Sidewalk Counselors educate her about the baby's biological development in her womb, and…the exact manner in which the abortion will kill her child. They will also warn her of the physical harm the abortion may cause to her own body…[and] provide [her] with literature telling of all the help available: financial, medical, and spiritual.” 3. Finally, “[t]here are some people who want to be present at the abortion mill but are physically unable to come. These Spiritual Helpers are present with the Helpers of God's Precious Infants in spirit. They contribute prayers and sacrifices made during the week, and offer it up for the work of The Helpers. The Helpers group that is present outside Planned Parenthood’s abortion mill in Lincoln is connected to Lincoln Right to Life and coordinated by Mrs. Pam McCabe. As I did in last week’s column with the pregnancy-help centers, I encourage all who want to help the pro-life cause to support the Helpers (or other sidewalk counselors) with your prayers, time or financial support. Your support can literally make the difference between life and death. Life Insight 9-11-09 Empowering Women to Choose Life One of the great myths in the abortion debate is that pro-life people only care about the “fetus” and do nothing for pregnant women or their children once born. The fact is pro-life people and organizations expend enormous amounts of time and money to address the social and economic needs of pregnant women and their children, before and after birth. Nationally, over 3000 pregnancy-help centers are operated, staffed and funded by pro-life people. There are 33 such centers in 21 communities throughout Nebraska (a list of the centers is available online at www.nebcathcon.org or by contacting my office). A smaller center may be staffed with a few volunteers while the larger ones have full-time staff with dozens of volunteers. These centers provide a wide range of services including the following: Housing, instructional programs, maternity and baby clothes, furniture and other necessities, adoption through licensed agencies, parenting classes, job training, medical care including pregnancy testing, prenatal and obstetrical care, social services, including counseling, arrangement for transportation, child health care, and assistance in applying for financial help before and after birth. Several of the larger centers are adopting more of a medical model that utilizes a physician medical director (in some cases an obstetrician/gynecologist) or nurse to provide a wider range of healthcare services such as screening and treatment of sexually-transmitted diseases. Some of these centers also offer mothers an ultrasound image of their unborn child, which can make the difference between life and death for the child. In addition to these centers, another front-line in reaching out to abortion-prone mothers are the sidewalk “counselors” who stand outside Nebraska’s two abortion centers (Lincoln and Bellevue). These incredibly loving and generous souls try to gently reach out to the mothers as they enter the abortion centers and offer them the love and support they need to choose life. The presence of these sidewalk counselors and others who simply come to pray that the moms will change their minds is powerful and effective. The number of mothers who change their minds has been increasing in recent years and this encouraging trend is certainly due in large part to the prayerful outreach at the abortion centers. The late pro-life champion Robert Casey, former Governor of Pennsylvania, said “the fundamental question posed by abortion is this: Once a child has been conceived, what is the proper response of a good society—of America at her best? “If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we, as a society, rise to that challenge by dispensing with the child? And when a pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround the mother and child with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home or at the abortion clinic?” I am regularly contacted by individuals asking me what they can do to help advance the pro-life cause. One very concrete and powerful way we can “surround the mother and child with protection and love” is to donate time and money to pregnancy-help centers and the sidewalk counseling groups. Your contribution can literally make the difference between life and death. Life Insight 9-4-09 It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. This picture of an unborn baby at nearly 12 weeks of gestation was handed to me as I stood with others recently outside LeRoy Carhart’s abortion mill in Bellevue. The mother of this child had scheduled an abortion that day but changed her mind. One of the pro-life sidewalk counselors escorted her across the street to A Woman’s Touch pregnancy help center where she was provided with loving care and assistance, which included an ultrasound of her baby. As I stared at this amazing picture, which the mother asked to be shared with others, the reality that this little human being was spared a violent death hit me between the eyes. I knew immediately that I had to share this story and this picture. For most people, I believe, abortion is viewed more as an “issue” (political, moral or otherwise) than as a concrete act that destroys a human life. Unborn babies are viewed as an abstraction—a dehumanized “blob of tissue”. Fortunately, ultrasound technology has provided a “window to the womb” revealing a recognizable human body, not a blob of tissue. Every day in this nation, roughly 3500 unborn babies are destroyed in their mother’s womb. In Nebraska, an average of about 8 abortions is done daily. On the day this baby’s life was spared between 15 and 20 unborn babies were not as fortunate and were killed by LeRoy Carhart. Nebraskan’s won’t see the tiny bodies of these aborted babies and will only recognize them as a statistic on an annual report issued by our state government. This cloaking of the brutal reality of abortion is one of the reasons this abomination continues in our society. And this is why I felt inspired to let this little one’s picture proclaim to the world that unborn babies are real human beings. On September 1, Nebraska’s new ultrasound bill (LB 675) went into effect. This new law requires that women seeking abortion be told they have the right to request a list of providers who perform ultrasounds, specifying those that provide them free of charge. The law also requires that if an ultrasound is performed prior to an abortion, the ultrasound screen must be displayed so that the mother may see it if she so chooses. A picture is worth a thousand words. Images can be very persuasive. I hope and pray that this baby’s image will save many other babies from abortion. Let us all pray that Nebraska’s new law (and similar laws in other states) will remove the dehumanizing and deceptive cloak of abortion rhetoric and save many babies and their mothers and fathers from the evil of abortion. Life Insight 8-21-09 Healthcare Reform Must Respect All Human Life The healthcare reform debate raging in the United States clearly has the attention of many Americans. Virtually everyone agrees that there are serious problems with our healthcare system (particularly exploding costs of care and insurance). How to best fix those problems is a legitimate, albeit contentious, debate. What is not legitimate is the attempt by the abortion lobby—and its many powerful collaborators in Congress—to use healthcare reform to expand abortion funding and access. Although the various bills in Congress are constantly changing, some of the committee action on these bills has many pro-life Americans very concerned. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has for decades advocated for genuine health care reform that leads to health care for all, including the weakest and most vulnerable. The USCCB has made clear to Congress that it wants to support health care reform. However, I’m pleased to say that the various offices of the USCCB are collaborating in an unprecedented way to ensure that any health care reform excludes abortion coverage or any other provisions that threaten the sanctity of life. In a July 17, 2009 letter to Congress, Bishop William Murphy, chair of the Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development expressed the USCCB’s support for health care reform “that offers accessible, affordable and quality health care that protects and respects the life and dignity of all people from conception until natural death.” Bishop Murphy then drew a line, declaring that “no health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion.” In a July 29th letter to Congress Cardinal Justin Rigali, chair of the USCCB Committee on Pro Life Activities, punctuated this point saying it is the bishops “fundamental requirement that health care legislation respect human life and rights of conscience. Much-needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an ‘abortion rights’ agenda or reversing longstanding current policies against federal abortion mandates and funding.” Congress is working on three main health care reform bills—one in the House and two in the Senate. In the House, three different committees are working on the bill entitled “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” (H.R. 3200). On July 17, two committees voted to advance the bill after rejecting amendments to exclude mandated coverage of abortion. On July 31, a third committee voted to advance a bill that was amended to address some pro-life concerns, but still provides for federally mandated abortion coverage. In the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee voted to advance its bill (not yet numbered). During debate on the bill, the Committee rejected amendments to exclude federal funding or mandated coverage for abortion and to maintain current state laws limiting and regulating abortion. In addition to concerns about abortion, many pro-life Americans are concerned about an end-of-life care provision in these bills. According to Richard Doerflinger from the USCCB Pro Life Office, this provision is for “advance care planning” (determining what care a patient wants and doesn’t want) and it mirrors a current Medicare reimbursement provision. Nobody is required to engage in the consultation. But if a doctor and patient decide they want to, Medicare will reimburse the doctor for his time (but usually not more often than once in five years for any given patient). Mr. Doerflinger, whose pro-life policy expertise and judgment I (and many others) trust and respect, does have concerns about this provision, especially in light of the government’s efforts to save on health care costs. Accordingly, he doesn’t think the provision belongs in the legislation and expects it to be removed from the Senate bill. The Bishops are urging Catholics to contact our members of Congress with the message that “a fair and just health care reform bill must exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and uphold longstanding laws that restrict abortion funding and protect conscience rights.” An action alert along with excellent background information is available online at www.nchla.org or by calling my office at 402-477-7517. Life Insight 8-7-09 Pro Life Conference Will Inform and Inspire Mark your calendars and make plans to attend the annual Bishops’ Pro Life Conference in Lincoln on October 2 and 3. This conference has a more than 30-year history of bringing outstanding pro-life speakers to Nebraska and this year is no exception. On Friday evening, October 2nd, the conference opens with a banquet at the Cornhusker Hotel in Lincoln. The keynote speaker for this banquet is Most Reverend Joseph Naumann, Archbishop of Kansas City, Kansas. The evening will begin with a reception that will include all three bishops of Nebraska providing an opportunity for participants to meet the new Archbishop of Omaha, Most Reverend George J. Lucas. Archbishop Naumann’s pro-life leadership includes serving for eleven years as the Coordinator of the Pro Life Committee for the Archdiocese of St. Louis, where he began his priesthood. In this capacity, then Fr. Naumann came to Nebraska to help my office start the post-abortion ministry of Project Rachel. Archbishop Naumann currently serves on the Committee on Pro Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In this capacity, the Archbishop has been an outspoken leader in defense of the Church’s teaching on the sacred dignity of human life. Most notable among his pro-life actions was his public admonishment of former Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic, for her actions and views in support of abortion. The Archbishop was recognized for his firm but pastoral approach to the public scandal created by Governor Sebelius’ pro-abortion stance. I am equally excited to announce that the keynote speaker on Saturday, October 3 will be Miss Lila Rose. Although Lila Rose may not yet be a household name, she is attracting national attention for her courageous and successful undercover investigations of Planned Parenthood, our nation’s largest abortion provider. Part of what makes Miss Rose’s work so remarkable is that she is a college student at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her impressive pro-life leadership began at the tender age of 15 when she founded Live Action. Live Action uses “new media” at both the community and national level to educate and mobilize youth, and to spread a pro-life message to the next generation. It is in this capacity that Miss Rose has conducted several student-led undercover investigations of Planned Parenthood. These investigations, which can be seen online at Live Action’s website (www.liveaction.org), have exposed racism and sexual abuse cover-ups at Planned Parenthood. For these actions, this abortion giant has tried to use its enormous resources to intimidate Miss Rose, but to no avail. Saturday’s conference, held at Pius X High School in Lincoln, will also feature the following talks: The Power of Grassroots Lobbying: How to Impact Federal and State Policymaking, Adoption: The “I Love You to Life” Option, Defending Life at Life’s End: Catholic Ethical Perspectives, and Empowering Women to Choose Life. The “adoption” presentation will feature a birth mom, adoptive parents and an adoptee. The “empowering women” presentation will feature representatives from urban and rural pregnancy-help centers and from abortion clinic sidewalk counseling ministries. A pro-life conference for high school students will also be held on October 3 at Pius X and will feature Miss Rose and a post-abortive woman. More information on both conferences is on the Nebraska Catholic Conference website at www.nebcathcon.org. Conference brochures will be mailed to every parish in the state in the next couple weeks and will also be available from my office. There is a great deal of troubling news these days about various ways in which our President and Congress are trying to expand abortion access and funding. This conference will not only equip participants with the knowledge to fight the culture of death, but will inspire and refresh all of us to be faithful and persistent in this battle. Mark your calendars and make plans to attend!! Life Insight 7-24-09 Nebraska has seen a steady decline in abortions since 1990 when our state hit its high water mark of abortions at 6346. In 2007, there were 2481 abortions done in Nebraska—a decline of 60 percent from the 1990 number. In the last five years alone, we’ve seen a nearly 40 percent drop in abortions. Unfortunately, that downward movement reversed itself in 2008 with a 13 percent increase in abortions compared to 2007. Nebraska law requires those who perform abortions to report certain information within 15 days from the end of the month in which the abortions are performed. The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services compiles this information and issues an annual report. The full report can be seen online at www.hhs.state.ne.us (click on “Statistics and Reports”) The report breaks down the abortions by age showing that the average age of those having abortions was just shy of 26. The modal age (age at which abortions occurred most frequently) was 22. The 20 to 29 age category has always comprised the largest percentage of abortion seekers and has increased from 44.7 percent in 1974 to 58.2 percent in 2008. The teen and 30-plus categories have flipped their percentages of total abortions. Teens have decreased from about 41 percent of abortions in 1974 to just under 16 percent in 2008. The 30-plus category has increased from 14.5 percent to 25.8 in that same time period. The most disturbing age statistic is that thirteen girls under the age of 15 had abortions in 2008. One of those girls was 12 years old, one was 13, eleven were 14 and twenty were 15 years of age. Even more sickening is the fact that this was the second abortion for two of the 14 year old girls and the third abortion for one of the 15 year old girls. What a horrible beginning to these young girls’ lives. The report also lists the reasons cited by women for having the abortions. Contrary to public perception, the “hard case” reasons of rape, incest and life of the mother were cited by a tiny fraction (three-tenths of one percent) of women. “Maternal physical health” and “fetal anomaly” were also cited by three-tenths of one percent each. The remaining 99 percent cited one or more of the following reasons: Socio-Economic, Contraceptive Failure and No Contraception Used. Specifically, 20 percent cited “contraceptive failure” and almost 56 percent cited “no contraception used”. These statistics and the saturation of our culture with contraceptives highlight the foolishness of the suggestion that abortions can be reduced by increasing access to contraception. Another very sad statistic cited by the report is the percentage of repeat abortions. Thirty-four percent of women who had abortions last year had a previous abortion. Six hundred fifty seven (23.4 %) had one previous abortion, 210 (7.5%) had two previous abortions, 61 (2.2%) had three previous abortions, 14 had four previous abortions and 15 had more than four previous abortions. I can’t begin to imagine the depth of pain and sorrow these women must be experiencing. Finally, the report indicates that six physicians did abortions in Nebraska last year. Three of them did one abortion apiece, two of them did 856 combined and one did 1,954 abortions. The report also shows that 1,949 abortions were done in Sarpy County, 862 were done in Lancaster County and two were done in Douglas County. From this data it is very easy to conclude that the two doctors who did 856 abortions were Meryl Severson and C.J. Labenz, who were the main abortionists for Planned Parenthood in Lincoln in 2008. It’s also clear that it was Leroy Carhart who did 1,954 abortions. Carhart runs an abortion facility in Bellevue (Sarpy County). Let us pray and fast for the healing of all who have had abortions or are contemplating abortion, and for the conversion of all abortionists. Life Insight 7-10-09 Late-Term Abortions in Nebraska? Immediately following the murder of Wichita abortionist George Tiller, Leroy Carhart, the Bellevue abortionist publicly announced his intention to carry on Tiller’s legacy of doing late-term abortions. Carhart said he intends to offer third trimester abortions at his Bellevue facility temporarily until he can open a late-term abortion facility in another state, probably Kansas. In the course of numerous public statements, Carhart has misrepresented the facts about Nebraska’s law on post-viability abortions and the alleged medical justification for such abortions. First, Carhart wrongly asserts that Nebraska’s post-viability abortion law is more restrictive than Kansas’ law. Nebraska law does prohibit abortions after viability (the point when the child can live outside the womb), except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. This “life or health” exception comes directly from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling. At first blush, this exception may seem quite narrow. However, in Doe v. Bolton, a ruling decided in tandem with Roe, the Supreme Court defined “health” as encompassing “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.” Obviously, this extremely broad definition of “health” creates an exception that swallows the rule. Kansas law also has a “health” exception for post-viability abortions but it is more narrowly defined as “a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function...” In addition, Kansas law requires two physicians to certify that one of these exceptions applies to every late term abortion and requires several reporting requirements. Second, Carhart and other abortion advocates have indicated that most post-viability abortions are done for medical or health reasons. Carhart said he would do post-viability abortions only on babies with fetal anomalies. The fallacy of these rationales for late-term abortions was addressed in an essay by Dr. Mary Davenport featured in Family Research Council’s publication InFocus (June 2009). Dr. Davenport used to do abortions but now is president-elect of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists. Dr. Davenport explains that “contrary to the assertion of abortion rights supporters that late-term abortion is performed for serious reasons, surveys of late abortion patients confirm that the vast majority occur because of delay in diagnosis of pregnancy. They are done for similar reasons as early abortions: relationship problems, young or old maternal age, education or financial concerns.” Dr. Davenport cited a statement by Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who admitted in 1997 that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions were performed on healthy mothers and babies. She also cites Peggy Jarman of the Pro-Choice Action League who said “that about three-fourths of Tiller’s late-term patients were teenagers who denied to themselves or their families that they were pregnant until that fact could no longer be obscured.” “Intentional abortion for maternal health, particularly after viability,” Dr. Davenport states, “is one of the great deceptions used to justify all abortion. The very fact that the baby of an ill mother is viable raises the question of why, indeed, it is necessary to perform an abortion to end the pregnancy. With any serious maternal health problem, termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby.” As for the aborting of babies because of physical anomalies, Dr. Davenport first points out that diagnoses of such anomalies are not always accurate. Furthermore, even in cases where the anomaly is certain and life-threatening Dr. Davenport points to “perinatal hospice” as a better alternative than abortion. “This involves continuing the pregnancy until labor begins and giving birth normally, in a setting of comfort and support until natural death occurs”, she said. “It is similar to what is done for families with terminally ill children and adults.” Dr. Davenport concludes that “although serious threats to health can occur, there is always a life-affirming way to care for mother and baby, no matter how bleak the prognosis. The elimination of late-term abortion would not create a void in medical care, but would instead result in a more humane world in which vulnerable humans would be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.”
|
Nebraska Catholic
Conference
