|
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 I
Roe Reversal Not Ultimate Goal (6-26-09) Conversion, Not Death (6-12-09) An Amazing Shift in Public Opinion (5-28-09) Obama, Abortion and Notre Dame (5-22-09) Another Opportunity to be Voice of the Voiceless (5-15-09) Plan B Nonsense (5-08-09) Regents Will Delay Policy Change (5-01-09) Pope Benedict is Right (4-24-09) Legislative Update (4-17-09) Pro Life with Confidence and Joy (4-10-09) Speak Out for Conscience Protection, Ethical Research (4-03-09) What to do with frozen embryos?(3-27-09) What Obama Didn’t Tell Us (3-20-09) Another Blow to Human Dignity (3-13-09) Abortion Packaging Hides Its Ugliness (3-06-09) Legislative Action Report (2-13-09)
We’ve Acted; Now Let’s Pray
(2-6-09) “Jane Roe” Hits Nebraska Airwaves (01-16-09) Speak Up for the Voiceless (01-09-09) Holy Families Essential to Culture of Life (1-2-09)
Life Insight 6-26-09 Roe Reversal Not Ultimate Goal In a June 12 guest editorial in the Omaha World Herald, Dr. Robert Heaney, a Creighton Medical School professor, attempted to find the “right words” for a meaningful discussion on the divisive practice of abortion. Unfortunately, the few “right words” he produced were overshadowed by some serious errors that need to be corrected. First, Dr. Heaney insinuates that the pro-life movement’s sole answer to the question of how to reduce the number of abortions is to “Reverse Roe v. Wade”. No pro-life group makes this assertion. The fact is neither overturning Roe nor even making abortion illegal (they’re not superfluous) is the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement. Making abortion unthinkable is our ultimate goal. To reach this goal, there certainly could be some common ground in the effort to reduce the number of abortions (e.g. promoting adoption, supporting women who carry their children to term, addressing the social injustices that often cause women to conclude that abortion is their only option). However, even if such efforts completely eliminated the incidence of abortion, a fundamental injustice would still exist in our nation as long as unborn human beings are not recognized and protected as full persons in our laws. Consider the analogy of slavery. The injustice of slavery would never have been resolved simply by eliminating the incidence of slavery. Justice also demanded the adoption of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery, and thereby overturning the despicable Dred Scott v Sanford ruling and the Constitutional provision counting a slave as three-fifths of a person. Second, Dr. Heaney expressed disdain for using labels as the sole representation of a person’s beliefs. I share that disdain. When people tell me they are “pro-life” or “pro-choice” I want to know what they mean by that term. However, Dr. Heaney only expressed critical words for those who “call themselves pro-life” and support practices (e.g. death penalty and war) that may be inconsistent with that label. Surely Dr. Heaney must also recognize that the term “pro-choice” is nothing but a dishonest cloak to disguise the injustice and violence of abortion. Furthermore, from the perspective of Catholic teaching, which Dr. Heaney invokes in his essay, procured abortion is never morally justifiable, whereas the death penalty and war can be morally justified, albeit in very rare circumstances. Hence, I find it strange that Dr. Heaney appeared to be more offended by those who oppose abortion and support the death penalty and war than by those who support the former and oppose the latter. Third, Dr. Heaney completely mangled Catholic teaching on free will when he said that the “true Catholic position should not be just pro-life but, in fact, strongly ‘pro-choice’.” God indeed gave human beings the freedom to choose (free will) because He wants us to love Him freely, which is necessary for love to be authentic. Where Dr. Heaney got it wrong was by suggesting that since God gave human beings a free will, society shouldn’t criminalize the choice of abortion. But why stop with the choice of abortion? Based on this view, upon what basis should society criminalize any human choices? Dr. Heaney’s distortion of free will also seemed to ignore God’s clear admonition that only choosing life and following His commandments will lead to eternal life (Deut. 30). Dr. Heaney, sadly, represents many other Catholics who claim to oppose the practice of abortion but who also oppose its criminalization. If he truly believes that human beings prior to birth are morally equivalent (and deserve equal protection) to human beings after birth, then his position is morally incoherent. If he doesn’t believe they are morally equivalent, then he ought to find the “right words” to explain why and stop invoking a vague notion of Catholic teaching to support his position. Life Insight 6-12-09 The Serran Prayer for Vocations begins with these words: “O God, Who wills not the death of a sinner, but rather that he be converted and live…” These are among the first words that came to mind upon learning about the murder of George Tiller, the late-term abortion doctor from Wichita. As a part of my work leading the Nebraska Bishops’ pro life office, I try to repeatedly remind my fellow Christians that the battle against death has been won by our Lord and Savior. Although evil (such as abortion) still exists and must be fiercely opposed our ultimate responsibility as Christians and pro-life activists is the salvation of souls, not defeating the culture of death at all costs. Although Dr. Tiller perpetrated unspeakable evil in killing tens of thousands of unborn babies (many of which were very late term), the man who murdered him “has done a gravely wicked thing”, Dr. Robert George said. Dr. George, a prominent Catholic law professor at Princeton University, went on to say that “[t]he evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. “No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence,” Dr. George continued. Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities issued this statement on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “Our bishops' conference and all its members have repeatedly and publicly denounced all forms of violence in our society, including abortion as well as the misguided resort to violence by anyone opposed to abortion. Such killing is the opposite of everything we stand for, and everything we want our culture to stand for: respect for the life of each and every human being from its beginning to its natural end. We pray for Dr. Tiller and his family." It is absolutely important for pro-life leaders to condemn—unequivocally—this and all acts of violence as a response to the violence of abortion. But it is equally important for us to condemn the predictable attempts by abortion advocates to use this tragedy, perpetrated by one (apparently unstable) person, to accuse the entire pro-life movement of complicity. Sadly, it’s not just the usual cast of pro-abortion leaders who are trying to convict all pro-lifers of bearing some responsibility for Dr. Tiller’s death. Most media outlets and even President Obama seem to be uncritically embracing such accusations. Their unjust accusations, however, were almost immediately exposed as duplicitous by their response (or lack thereof) to the murder and wounding of two army recruiters in Arkansas a day after Dr. Tiller was killed. As Michelle Malkin pointed out in her June 3 column, “Both crimes are despicable, cowardly acts of domestic terrorism. But the disparate treatment of the two brutal cases by both the White House and the media is striking. President Obama issued a statement condemning ‘heinous acts of violence’ within hours of Tiller’s death. The Justice Department issued its own statement and sent federal marshals to protect abortion clinics.” “By contrast,” Malkin continues, “Obama was silent [until several days later] about the military recruiter attacks…The Justice Department was mum. And so were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder of Tiller.” The pro-life movement must continue to proclaim the truth, with love, about the injustice and evil of abortion. And, as difficult as it can be at times, we must do so with the confidence and peace of knowing that the battle against death has been won. God does not ask us to defeat death and He “wills not the death of a sinner”. God asks us to faithfully and unceasingly choose and defend life so “that all may be converted and live.” Life Insight 5-29-09 An Amazing Shift in Public Opinion Call it irony—or Divine Providence. On the same weekend that Notre Dame was honoring our pro-abortion President, a new Gallup Poll was released showing—for the first time since the poll’s origin in 1995—a majority of U.S. adults now identify themselves as pro-life. Fifty one percent of those polled identified themselves as pro-life, while 42 percent called themselves pro-choice. This is an amazing shift from just one year ago when 50 percent identified themselves as pro-choice and 44 percent as pro-life. According to report issued by Gallup, the sources of this shift are clear. First, the “percentage of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) calling themselves ‘pro-life’ rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%...” Those calling themselves “pro-choice” dropped from 36% to 26%. The poll shows virtually no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners with 61% calling themselves pro-choice versus 33% calling themselves pro-life. This dichotomy is also seen by ideology as the poll found that “all of the increase in pro-life sentiment is seen among self-identified conservatives and moderates; the abortion views of political liberals have not changed.” Second, “the swelling of the pro-life position since last year is seen across Christian religious affiliations, including an eight-point gain among Protestants and a seven-point gain among Catholics.” The percentage of pro-life Protestants increased from 51% to 59%. The percentage of pro-life Catholics increased from 45% to 52%. That Catholics are less likely to identify themselves as pro-life than Protestants is a sad parenthetical to this otherwise good news. Third, Gallup noted that the views of both men and women have shifted into the pro-life column. Last year, the Gallup poll found more women identifying themselves as pro-choice than pro-life by 50% to 43%. This year, those numbers have basically flipped with 49% of women saying they are pro-life and 44% saying they’re pro-choice. The shift in opinion among men was even more dramatic. Last year, this poll found 49% of men identifying as pro-choice and 46% as pro-life. This year, the poll has 54% of men identifying as pro-life and just 39% as pro-choice. According to Gallup, “this is the first time in nine years of Gallup Values surveys that significantly more men and women are pro-life than pro-choice.” The Gallup Poll also showed that American attitudes are also shifting toward supporting more restrictions on abortion. The percentage of those who think abortion should be illegal in all (23%) or most (37%) circumstances is now 60% (it was 57% last year). More significant is the shift in what Gallup calls the “extreme views” on abortion. Last year 28% of Americans said abortion should be legal in all circumstances versus 17% who said it should be illegal in all circumstances. This year, 22% said abortion should be legal in all circumstances and 23% said it should be illegal in all circumstances. That is a whopping 12 point shift in opinion. The results of this Gallup poll were confirmed in three other recent surveys. Gallup’s daily tracking poll, a Pew Research poll and a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll all showed the same dramatic shift toward the pro-life position. These polls are among a number of very positive signs indicating that President Obama’s dismantling of federal pro-life policies is re-energizing the pro-life movement. Even Gallup acknowledged this dynamic saying this about the “bottom line” of the poll: “With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation’s policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans…seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position.” People of faith know that God can bring good out of any situation. Perhaps President Obama’s frontal assault on pro-life policies will cause the pro-life movement to emerge a stronger and more effective force for restoring the right to life of our unborn brothers and sisters. Let us pray, fast and work that this may be so. Life Insight 5-22-09 Obama, Abortion and Notre Dame For weeks I’ve been following the brewing controversy about Notre Dame’s decision to invite and honor a President whose words and deeds as a public official place him among the most extreme of abortion advocates. I watched as more than 360,000 people (including myself) signed an online petition urging the University’s president, Fr. John Jenkins, to rescind the invitation. I watched as more than 70 bishops and countless clergy spoke out against inviting and honoring the President. I watched with admiration as Harvard Professor Mary Ann Glendon turned down Notre Dame’s highest honor (Laetare Award) in part because her selection was characterized by Fr. Jenkins as a pro-life “balance” to his honoring of a pro-abortion President. I’ve pondered how Notre Dame’s honoring President Obama seems to “thumb its nose” at the 2004 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops document, “Catholics in Public Life”, which says the following: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." Then, on graduation day I listened as Fr. Jenkins defended his decision to invite the President on the basis of the need for respect and dialogue with those whose views differ with ours. He emphasized the point by quoting the Second Vatican Council’s document Gaudium et Spes which calls us to “respect and love…those who think or act differently than we do” so we can more easily dialogue with them. With all due respect to Fr. Jenkins, his suggestion that the controversy he created is about whether or not we should dialogue with those whose views differ with ours should insult the intelligence of every thinking person. This controversy is not about dialogue, it is about the scandal Notre Dame creates by giving President Obama a very public platform and even worse by honoring him with a degree. At the risk of being flippant, if dialogue is now defined as giving a platform to and honoring those who differ with our views, then I expect to hear that President Obama or Planned Parenthood will soon be giving an award and a platform to Pope Benedict. Seriously, anyone who knows my approach to the pro-life cause knows that I will go to great lengths to show respect for, and to work with, those who hold differing views than mine. I try very hard to presume the best in others and take them at their word until I see that their actions do not comport with their words. In his Notre Dame speech, President Obama told the graduates to have “open hearts” and “open minds” on the issue of abortion. And he asked both sides of the abortion debate to avoid demonizing the other side. Like Fr. Jenkins, the President’s characterization of the abortion debate is insulting. And his words ring hollow given his radical support of abortion and embryo-destructive research as an elected official before and after becoming President of the United States. As I reflect upon the words and actions of Fr. Jenkins in inviting, honoring and defending the President, what most reverberates in my mind is this question: “What does he really think about abortion?” Father said in his welcome speech that Notre Dame fully supports the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of life. However, his words and actions make it difficult to conclude that he really believes that abortion is an intrinsic evil that violently destroys more than one million human beings each year and has destroyed more than 50 million since 1973. How else could he, and so many other Catholics like him, support, defend and honor a President who has quickly begun to fulfill his campaign promises to expand the practice of abortion and to ensure the “right” to procure it is preserved by the Supreme Court? Life Insight 5-15-09 Another Opportunity to be Voice of the Voiceless The Obama Administration hasn’t wasted any time in dismantling numerous pro-life policies of the Bush Administration. It is a very sad irony that our nation’s first black President views prenatal human beings in the same way that our nation used to view black human beings: as less than full persons. One of the latest actions occurred on March 9, when President Obama issued an Executive Order overturning the limits President Bush placed on funding of embryo-destructive stem cell research. On April 23, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published draft guidelines to implement the Obama directive. If these guidelines are approved, any stem cells harvested by destroying “leftover” human embryos from fertility clinics will be eligible for federal funding. For the first time in our nation’s history, our federal tax dollars will be used in a way that will encourage the destruction of embryonic human beings. Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, called the draft guidelines “a new chapter in divorcing biomedical research from its necessary ethical foundation.” Without unconditional respect for human life, he said, experiments on human subjects become “another way for some human beings to use and mistreat others for their own goals.” As bad as these draft guidelines are, some in Congress and the Obama Administration want to expand them even further. Calling the guidelines “the first step”, Congressmen Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Michael Castle (R-DE) have announced their intention to introduce broader legislation that would allow funding of research using embryos created solely for research by in vitro fertilization or cloning. As a result of these offensive actions against the sacred dignity of human life, the U.S. Bishops are urging Catholics to contact their Congressmen and the NIH and express opposition to using taxpayer funds for research that requires the destruction of innocent human life. To facilitate this action, the Bishops’ Pro Life Office has established an excellent new website at www.usccb.org/stemcellcampaign. The website provides numerous excellent resources for educating the public on the science and ethics of stem cell research and facilitating action against efforts to expand and fund unethical research. The educational resources include the U.S. Bishops’ official statement on embryonic stem cell research, an excellent and concise fact sheet on stem cell research and cloning. Both of these documents are available in English and Spanish. Three compelling web and print ads are also featured on this site. This website also facilitates action. It includes a one page “action alert” that can be downloaded, copied and distributed in parishes. And with a simple click of a button, it provides a way to e-mail a pre-written message (or your own) to our members of Congress and to the NIH. Time is short for submitting comments to the NIH on its draft guidelines. The 30-day period required for public comment before the guidelines are finalized will end on May 26. Those without internet access may contact my office at 402-477-7517 for an action alert or any of the educational resources mentioned above. I have no doubt that many people do not understand the serious offense to God that embryo-destructive research, cloning and in vitro fertilization represent. The gravity of this offense was explained in the following, very concise statement by Richard Doerflinger from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office: “Today we face a challenge that is more subtle, but even more overpowering, as human beings are tempted to exert ultimate control over the origins and traits of fellow humans. As ethicist Nigel Cameron has said, we are moving from the ‘Cain and Abel issues’ to the ‘Tower of Babel issues,’ from denying human lives to denying our human limitations.” Life Insight 5-08-09 On April 22, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it will follow a judge’s order and allow 17 year old boys and girls to buy “emergency contraception” (EC) over-the-counter, without a doctor’s prescription. The judge invalidated the previous FDA policy requiring a minimum age of 18 to purchase EC over-the-counter and directed the agency to consider removing all age restrictions. When I read about this decision in the Lincoln Journal Star (4/23/09) my fairly even temper began to spike. The story says the judge concluded that “President George W. Bush’s appointees [in the FDA] let politics, not science, drive their decision to restrict over-the-counter access.” The president of the Center for Reproductive Rights punctuated this accusation by saying the FDA’s decision is “a good indication that the agency will move expeditiously to ensure its policy on Plan B is based solely on science.” The suggestion that the agency’s decision was based on science is complete nonsense. “The scientific literature,” Susan Wills’ documents, “shows that FDA’s move was based on wishful thinking, not science. Plan B’s claimed effectiveness has been debunked—both for individuals and populations. And while advocates encourage unnecessary and repeated use, science shows that young women are being put at risk, while the drug’s mode of action and side effects are downplayed.” Mrs. Wills, from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life office, points out that “[o]ne of Plan B’s earliest champions, Princeton’s James Trussell, Ph.D., widely promoted claims that it was 89% effective in preventing pregnancy and would reduce abortions in the U.S. by half. But in January 2007, Trussell and others published a review of 23 studies evaluating Plan B effectiveness. “They found that ‘no study has shown that increased access to [Plan B] reduces unintended pregnancy or abortion rates on a population level.’ They concluded that individual use of Plan B may reduce pregnancy risk by ‘more than 23%,’ but that efficacy claims of 80% ‘may overstate actual efficacy, possibly quite substantially.’ In short: Plan B works poorly in the individual woman and not at all in large groups of women!” Anna Glasier, an EC researcher, stated in a 2006 editorial in the British Medical Journal that “[t]en studies in different countries have shown that giving women a supply of emergency contraception to keep at home…increases use by twofold to threefold…but [has] had no measurable effect on rates of pregnancy or abortion.” She concludes: “If you are looking for an intervention that will reduce abortion rates, emergency contraception may not be the solution.” The primary reason cited for making EC easier to obtain is that it will reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion. However, the scientific evidence is overwhelming that easier access to EC does not produce this result. For more evidence of EC’s failure go online to: http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/factsheetec21607.shtml. What makes the FDA’s decision even more irresponsible is that EC can have serious side effects and risks including bleeding disorders, extreme menstrual cycle irregularities, soaring STD rates and potentially fatal ectopic pregnancies. These effects are not surprising given the fact that EC is 40 times the potency of the oral contraceptive pill, which, by the way, still requires a prescription. Furthermore, as Mrs. Wills points out, when EC is available over-the-counter, “the possibility of coercion, abuse of a minor, and cover-up of statutory rape cannot be ignored”. And “[t]here is also evidence that, depending on the timing of Plan B relative to ovulation, the drug may [cause an early abortion] by indirectly altering protein levels in the uterine lining so the week- old embryo cannot implant to receive nutrition from his or her mother.” Sadly, many have uncritically accepted the contention by contraception apologists that pregnancy begins when the embryo implants in the womb. Therefore, they claim, preventing implantation of an embryo (some wrongly call it an egg) in the womb is not an abortion. This contention is simply a verbal sleight of hand that is unsustainable by basic biological facts. As the saying goes, “verbal engineering always precedes social engineering”. Life Insight 5-01-09 Regents Will Delay Policy Change Last month, President Obama issued an executive order eliminating restrictions President Bush had placed on funding of ESCR. He then directed the NIH to develop new funding guidelines and two weeks ago the NIH issued a draft of the guidelines. As expected, the guidelines allow funding for research using newly harvested stem cells from embryos destroyed solely for research purposes. By contrast, the policy under President Bush restricted federal funding to stem cells harvested from embryos prior to the date of his order (August 9, 2001). This policy prevented the use of our tax dollars as an incentive for destroying more embryos for research purposes. In a statement criticizing these draft guidelines, Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chair of the Bishops’ Pro Life Committee, said “[f]or the first time, federal tax dollars will be used to encourage destruction of living embryonic human beings for stem cell research – including human beings who otherwise would have survived and been born.” “Despite supporters’ constant claim that this agenda involves only embryos that ‘would otherwise be discarded,’” the Cardinal stated, “the guidelines provide that the option of donating embryonic children for destructive research will be offered to parents alongside all other options, including those allowing the embryos to live.” These guidelines, he said “mark a new chapter in divorcing biomedical research from its necessary ethical foundation. “Without unconditional respect for the life of each and every member of the human race,” the Cardinal continued, “research involving human subjects does not represent true progress. It becomes another way for some human beings to use and mistreat others for their own goals. Suffering patients and their families deserve better, through increased support for promising and ethically sound stem cell research and treatments that harm no one.” In Nebraska, a major effort is underway to urge the University of Nebraska Board of Regents to prohibit any expansion of ESCR at its Medical Center (UNMC) in Omaha. The Med Center has been conducting ESCR under the Bush Administration restrictions but would like to expand this unethical research under the new Obama guidelines. It was hoped that the Regents would adopt a policy change prohibiting this expansion at their April 24th meeting. However, University President J.B. Milliken apparently convinced the Regents to delay a policy change until the NIH finalizes its guidelines, which must be done by July 7th. The delay is deeply disappointing. However, I remain hopeful that the five Regents who have expressed their opposition to any expansion of ESCR (Clare, Ferlic, Hawks, McClurg and Phares) will stay true to their convictions and, at a subsequent meeting, prohibit expansion of ESCR. In the meantime, I urge Nebraskans to add their name to a petition being sponsored by the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research. The petition asks the Regents to prohibit expansion of ESCR at UNMC and can be signed online at www.ethicalresearch.net or by contacting NCER at 402-690-2299 or at P.O. Box 540311, Omaha, NE, 68154. I also urge physicians, other healthcare professionals, and researchers to sign a letter to the Regents also being sponsored by NCER. Those wishing to view and sign the letter can contact NCER at the above phone number or by e-mail at info@ethicalresearch.net. All individuals are encouraged to also directly contact their representative on the Board of Regents by phone or e-mail. Contact information is available on NCER’s website or by calling Regents’ Hall at 402-472-2111. Life Insight 4-24-09 You wouldn’t know it by reading or watching most of the mainstream media’s coverage, but some very credible AIDS experts have defended Pope Benedict’s recent statement against the use of condoms to combat AIDS in Africa. En route to Africa, the Pope answered a reporter’s question on this topic by saying that the AIDS epidemic “cannot be overcome by the distribution of [condoms]: on the contrary, they increase it.” Susan Wills, from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life office, pointed out that the Pope “was harshly criticized for calling into question the central dogma of the sexual revolution that ‘safe sex’ is free of consequences.” For example, the Washington Post (3/18/09, page A09) reported Rebecca Hodes with the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa saying this: “If the pope was serious about preventing new HIV infections, he would focus on promoting wide access to condoms and spreading information on how best to use them. Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans." In reality, it is Ms. Hodes, and so many others like her, who seems to care more about her ideological dogma than the lives of Africans. In fact, Pope Benedict’s position is far more sustained by science than is Ms. Hodes’ position. Ms. Wills points out that “[m]any AIDS experts have found that condoms do not work and, as Benedict observed, may be ‘exacerbating the problem’ in Africa.” For example, Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, said in a National Review Online article that “the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. “This may be due in part,” Green continued, “to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.” Ms. Wills points out that the “risk compensation” phenomenon has been documented with other behaviors. For example, “someone who uses sunscreen is likely to stay in the sun longer, and studies have shown an increase in melanoma among sunscreen users. Similarly,” she says, “experts in sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) have found that risk compensation may occur with condom use. “As noted in a 2006 study co-authored by a senior advisor in the USAID Office of HIV/AIDS, many HIV researchers have reported that ‘the perception that using condoms can reduce the risk of HIV infection may have contributed to increases in inconsistent use, which has minimal protective effect, as well as to a possible neglect of the risks of having multiple sexual partners. Thus, the protective effect of promoting condoms…could even be offset by aggregate increases in risky sexual behavior.’” What does work? Ms. Wills answers this question by citing a 2004 Comment in the medical journal The Lancet signed by 150 AIDS experts “calling for an evidence-based approach to preventing the sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS, with primary emphasis on changing behavior rather than promoting condoms to halt generalized epidemics.” One co-author of this study later testified to Congress saying that “No generalized HIV epidemic has ever been rolled back by a prevention strategy based primarily on condoms. Instead, the few successes…were achieved not through condoms but by getting people to change their sexual behavior.” “Once again,” Ms Wills rightly points out, “science has proven the wisdom of Church teaching on abstinence before, and faithfulness within, marriage.” A fact sheet with additional information and citations to research studies on this topic is online at www.usccb.org/prolife/factsheet/condoms. Life Insight 4-17-09 Fight FOCA Postcard Campaign In January, parishes throughout Nebraska joined in a nationwide postcard campaign to oppose the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) and to support existing laws against funding and promotion of abortion. The project was sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and supported by the three Bishops of Nebraska. To date, about one-third (130) of the parishes in Nebraska have reported sending nearly 100,000 postcards to our representatives in Congress. I am confident that more than a third of our parishes participated in this campaign so the number of postcards sent from Nebraska is likely much higher. Nationally, more than 10 million postcards were distributed to various dioceses. So far, Congress seems to be hearing our message. The Omnibus Appropriations Bill passed by the House of Representatives and Senate retained all current riders on abortion, embryo research and conscience rights without change. The only exception is new language authorizing U.S. funding of the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) despite that organization’s support for the coercive population program in China. FOCA hasn’t yet been introduced in this Congress, but there are indications it will happen soon. Federal Legislation The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (a sister organization of the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life office) tracks federal pro-life legislation as well as the votes of our federal representatives. A legislative report, voting records and a lot of other useful information about federal pro-life policies can be seen at www.nchla.org.
State Legislation There are three abortion-related measures that were introduced in our State Legislature this year. The first one is LB 675, commonly referred to as “the Ultrasound Bill”, which was introduced by Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. Just last week, this bill was voted out of the Judiciary Committee and will soon be debated by the entire Legislature. This bill would amend the state’s current informed consent law by requiring the following prior to an abortion: 1. Informing the mother that she cannot be forced by anyone to have an abortion and has the right to request a list of providers who offer ultrasounds (specifying which ones provide them for free); 2. If an ultrasound is performed prior to the abortion, the abortionist must display the screen so that the mother may choose to see it and tell her that it is displayed for her to see. The text of the bill and a list of the bill’s 21 co-sponsors can be seen online at http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=6867. ACTION: Please contact your state senator as soon as possible and urge him or her to support LB 675. You can find your senator and his/her contact information online at: http://nebraskalegislature.gov/senators/senator_find.php. A second abortion-related bill, LB 594, is called “The Women’s Health Protection Act” and was introduced by Sen. Cap Dierks of Ewing. This bill would require abortionists to screen and inform mothers of risk factors that would predispose them to more severe post-abortion complications (emotional, psychological or physical). This bill remains in the Judiciary Committee while revisions are being made to address concerns expressed about it by the Nebraska Medical Association. The bill will probably remain in the Judiciary Committee until next year’s legislative session to allow time to make the necessary revisions. Links to the bill and background information are online at: www.nebcathcon.org/2009_legislation.htm. The third measure is Legislative Resolution 26 introduced by Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh (Omaha). This resolution does not create law but would put our Legislature officially on record urging President Obama and Congressional leaders to oppose the Freedom of Choice Act. A link to this resolution is also available at the previously mentioned website. LR 26 will likely remain in the Judiciary Committee until FOCA is introduced in Congress. Life Insight 4-10-09 Pro Life with Confidence and Joy If I were to write a job description for individuals engaged in pro-life leadership, it would include the role of spiritual advisor or motivator. This role is important, first of all, because the battle against the culture of death is clearly a spiritual battle. The many and varied attacks against God’s sacred gift of human life are clearly from the devil who also seeks to undermine our pro-life efforts. On a more practical level, this role is important in guarding against the temptation of cynicism when individuals get weary from the battle. This role must also protect individuals from becoming discouraged or overwhelmed by new attacks against the right to life (e.g embryo-destructive research, the assault on conscience protection). I occasionally hear from or interact with individuals who are tempted toward such things as they try to remain engaged in the pro-life battle. My advice, which I try to heed, is to keep at the forefront of our efforts the assurance of our faith in a God who sent His Son to conquer death once and for all. The Easter Triduum obviously provides the most potent opportunity for reflection on this greatest act of love by our God. Let us sear into our minds and hearts that God does not ask us to defeat death; He did that. But evil remains among us, and is always on the prowl. Therefore what God does ask of us is to faithfully, passionately and unceasingly oppose evil wherever and whenever it appears. And He gave each of us unique gifts and opportunities to serve Him in this way. At our final judgment, then, we will not be asked if we saved the world or defeated all attacks against human life. But we will have to account for how faithfully and persistently we used the gifts and opportunities God gave us to serve Him. In particular, I believe, we will account for our action or inaction in proclaiming and defending the sacred dignity of human life, which He made in His image and likeness. If we truly embrace and embody the assurance of our faith, then we should be confident and joy-filled in our pro-life efforts. Even in the darkest days of this culture of death in which we live, we know that this darkness cannot overcome the Light of Christ. The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus provided the following reflection on our responsibility to protect human life and God’s assurance that our efforts are premised upon the victory He won for us. It has long been a source of inspiration for my pro-life work. I pray that it also inspires you as we contemplate our Lord’s passion, death and resurrection. “So long as we have the gift of life we must protect the gift of life. So long as it is threatened, so long must it be defended. This is the time to brace ourselves for the long term. We are today laying the foundations for the prolife movement of the twenty-first century. Pray that the foundations are firm, for we have not yet seen the full fury of the storm that is upon us. “But we have not the right to despair. We have not the right and we have not the reason to despair if we understand that our entire struggle is premised not upon a victory to be achieved, but a victory that has been achieved. If we understand that, far from despair we have right and reason to rejoice that we are called to such a time as this, a time of testing, a time of truth. “The encroaching culture of
death shall not prevail, for we know, as we read in John’s gospel, ‘The light
shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.’ The darkness
will never overcome that light.” Life Insight 4-3-09 Speak Out for Conscience Protection, Ethical Research I am often asked for concrete suggestions on how individuals can contribute to the pro-life cause. Prayer and fasting tops my list. Right now, however, there are a couple of particular injustices that cry out for our action: protecting the conscience rights of health care workers and opposing expansion of unethical research. Action One. Last December, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a new regulation to implement and enforce three longstanding federal laws that protect individual and institutional health care providers from being forced to participate in procedures such as abortion to which they have a moral or religious objection. The oldest law, enacted in 1973, helps ensure that health care personnel with moral or religious objections to abortion or sterilization (or, in some contexts, other medical or research activities) are not discriminated against by entities receiving certain kinds of federal grants. It also forbids health care entities to discriminate in training and employment against health professionals or applicants for study because they are willing or unwilling to participate in abortion or sterilization. The second law, enacted in 1996, forbids federal agencies, and state or local governments receiving federal funds, to discriminate against health care providers and health training programs because they do not provide abortions or abortion training. The third law forbids federal funding for government bodies which discriminate against health care providers and insurers not involved in abortion. For texts of these laws see www.usccb.org/prolife/Dec08fedconslaws.pdf. Despite the existence of these laws, some state and local governments as well as professional societies and advocacy groups still attack conscience rights as though they do not exist – and many health care providers do not even know they have these rights. Enforcement is also hampered by undefined terms in the laws, and by failure to identify a federal office responsible for defending these conscience rights. The conscience protection regulation was issued to address these enforcement problems. Abortion advocates, who claim to defend the “freedom to choose”, vehemently oppose this regulation and have petitioned President Obama to rescind it. Sadly, the President has agreed to their request adding disregard for conscience rights to his quickly growing list of anti-life actions since becoming President. Before rescinding the regulation, public comment on the change must be allowed for 30 days, which ends at close of business on April 9. The U.S. Bishops Conference has produced an excellent web page (www.usccb.org/conscienceprotection) with background material (source of the above information) and an easy opportunity to send a message to the Department of Health and Human Services before April 9. Cardinal Francis George, President of the Bishops’ Conference is urging Catholics in the United States to tell the Obama Administration to retain this regulation. Preserving conscience protections, he said, is vital to keeping the government from “moving our country from democracy to despotism”. Action Two. I have written recently about President Obama’s decision to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and to eliminate a funding preference for efforts to find ethical alternatives to this immoral research. Although there is little that can be done to prevent this federal expansion, we have the opportunity to prevent its expansion in Nebraska. A grassroots effort is underway to urge the University of Nebraska Board of Regents to prohibit expansion of ESCR at the University’s Medical Center in Omaha. The Med Center wants to expand its current ESCR and is mobilizing its considerable resources and powerful allies to urge the Regents to allow it. The Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research has made it easy to communicate with the Regents through its website at www.NCEResearch.com. On this site, individuals can sign a petition to the Regents and can e-mail them a message to prohibit expansion of ESCR at the Med Center. Those without internet access can contact my office to sign the petition and to obtain the Regents’ contact information. Please act now…a few minutes of your time can make a difference! Life Insight 3-27-09 What to do with frozen embryos? In last week’s column I began to answer a question posed by University of Nebraska Regent Kent Schroeder. In an e-mail response to constituents, the Regent asked “would you make it a crime to throw away frozen embryos that are no longer needed by the owners thereof?” My first reaction to his question was to point out his very disturbing view of embryonic human life. It is clear he has little or no regard for the moral status of human embryos when he refers to them as mere products that “are no longer needed” by their “owners.” Regent Schroeder’s question is a classic example of a “straw man” (i.e. creating a false scenario, or straw man, by misrepresenting your opponent’s position so you can easily “knock it down”). His question is based on the false premise that there is no moral distinction between allowing human embryos to die and intentionally destroying them for the purpose of exploiting them for medical research. The short answer to Schroeder’s question is “no” but it requires further explanation. First, it is necessary to recognize the scientific fact that frozen human embryos are human beings in their earliest stage of life. They are human beings who have been produced and “stored” in a way that violates their dignity and human rights. Therefore, it is in vitro fertilization (IVF) that should be prohibited. The Church, however, recognizes that outlawing IVF is not likely to happen now that it has become so firmly entrenched in society. Enacting laws that would limit its excesses, however, might be feasible. For example, some countries like Germany prohibit the production and freezing of extra embryos for future implantation. Such laws require fertility clinics to only fertilize embryos that will be implanted for one attempt at achieving pregnancy. This would at least eliminate the inhuman and undignified practice of freezing human embryos and the ethical dilemmas created by this practice. So, if we believe that frozen embryos are human beings deserving of protection, then what is the morally correct thing to do with the thousands of embryos abandoned by their parents? In September, 2008, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith addressed this question in its instruction Dignitas Personae. This document (consistent with past Vatican documents) clearly condemns using human embryos for research because this would “treat the embryos as mere ‘biological material’ and result in their destruction.” Dignitas Personae also clearly rejects putting these embryos “at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility”. It says doing this is “not ethically acceptable” for the same reasons it is immoral for one couple to use another couple’s gametes (sperm and egg) for procreation; this act substitutes for the conjugal act of the couple. The document seems a little less clear about “prenatal adoption”, where a couple would adopt and gestate embryos “solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction…” It praises “the intention of respecting and defending human life,” but says it presents “various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.” Dignitas Personae makes pretty clear that there are no good solutions to the problem of abandoned frozen embryos. It appears, however, that “prenatal adoption” and allowing the embryos to die (with a dignified burial) present the least moral problems. In any event, it is clear that either of these options is more respectful of the embryos’ dignity and rights than treating them as material to be used in research. Dignitas Personae and some good supplemental materials can be seen online at: http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/index.shtml. And a concise explanation of the Church’s teaching on reproductive technologies is available at www.nebcathcon.org (click on “printed resources” and then “Begotten Not Made”). Both documents can also be obtained from my office. Life Insight 3-20-09 President Obama’s announcement that he will expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research got a lot of media attention last week. Many Americans learned that not only will more of our tax dollars be used for immoral research, but for the first time in our nation’s history, tax dollars will be used in a way that will encourage the destruction of human embryos for their stem cells. As morally offensive as this is, there are other provisions of the President’s policy that are equally offensive and received no mention by him or by the mainstream media. First is that his executive order also rescinded a 2007 policy established by President Bush to give funding preference to research that seeks new ethical alternatives to embryo-destructive research. Due at least in part to President Bush’s 2001 policy creating ethical funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), several new technologies were pursued for advancing ESCR without creating or destroying human embryos. One such technique is “cell reprogramming” in which ordinary human cells are transformed into embryonic-like cells without the ethical problems or producing or destroying human embryos. This technique, named the scientific "breakthrough of the year" for 2008 by the journal Science, is so significant that even several pioneers of embryo and cloning research have decided to do cell reprogramming research instead. So just when science has found and is beginning to embrace an ethical way to do “embryonic” stem cell research, our President is shifting funding priorities back toward ethically divisive embryo-destructive research. As Cardinal Justin Rigali said in his response to the President’s policy, that’s a “sad victory of politics over science and ethics.” A second unknown but deeply troubling aspect of Obama’s executive order is that he places no meaningful limits on what the National Institutes of Health can fund. His policy opens the door for the NIH to fund research using stem cells from embryos produced (by in vitro fertilization or cloning) and destroyed solely for research purposes. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who was a member of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, said Obama is “[leaving] it entirely to the scientists” to determine where the ethical lines will be drawn. “This is more than moral abdication,” he continues. “It is acquiescence to the mystique of ‘science’ and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Megele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean [cloning] research is hard to fathom.” Finally, on a local level, I must respond to an e-mail that University of Nebraska Regent Kent Schroeder (Kearney) has been sending to those who contact him urging his opposition to expanded ESCR at the University’s Medical Center in Omaha. He starts by saying: “I support stem cell research”. This statement is terribly disingenuous. I have no doubt that Regent Schroeder knows that the battle line in this controversy is not between those who support stem cell research and those who oppose it. I know of no one who opposes non-embryonic stem cell research. Many people, however, draw the line at killing human embryos to get stem cells. Regent Schroeder then asked this question of those who contacted him: “Would you make it a crime to throw away frozen embryos that are no longer needed by the owners thereof?” In some sense, I suppose Schroeder should be commended for sparing us the usual euphemisms used by most ESCR advocates to disguise their moral disregard for human embryos. Regent Schroeder’s view of embryonic human life couldn’t be clearer when he refers to them as mere products that “are no longer needed” by their “owners.” The simple answer to Schroeder’s question is “no”. But the question emanates from the false premise that there is no moral distinction between allowing human embryos to die and intentionally destroying them for the purpose of exploiting them for medical research. A more thorough answer will be the topic of my next column. Life Insight 3-13-09 On Monday, March 9th, President Obama dealt another blow to human dignity by expanding federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). For the last eight years the federal government has only funded ESCR using stem cells that were harvested from embryos destroyed prior to August 9, 2001, the date when President Bush established his policy on ESCR. This policy has kept federal money from being used as an incentive to create new stem cell lines thereby destroying more embryos. The Obama policy, however, allows federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell lines created after 2001 thereby creating a new incentive for researchers to destroy more embryos and create new stem cell lines. In a statement issued on Monday, Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro Life Activities said, “President Obama’s new executive order on embryonic stem cell research is a sad victory of politics over science and ethics. This action is morally wrong because it encourages the destruction of innocent human life, treating vulnerable human beings as mere products to be harvested. “It also disregards the values of millions of American taxpayers who oppose research that requires taking human life. Finally, it ignores the fact that ethically sound means for advancing stem cell science and medical treatments are readily available and in need of increased support.” “In his January 16th letter to President-elect Obama, Cardinal George, writing as President of the USCCB, cited three reasons why such destructive research is ‘especially pointless at this time’: • ‘First, basic research in the capabilities of embryonic stem cells can be and is being pursued using the currently eligible cell lines as well as the hundreds of lines produced with nonfederal funds since 2001. • ‘Second, recent startling advances in reprogramming adult cells into embryonic-like stem cells – hailed by the journal Science as the scientific breakthrough of the year – are said by many scientists to be making embryonic stem cells irrelevant to medical progress. • ‘Third, adult and cord blood stem cells are now known to have great versatility, and are increasingly being used to reverse serious illnesses and even help rebuild damaged organs. To divert scarce funds away from these promising avenues for research and treatment toward the avenue that is most morally controversial as well as most medically speculative would be a sad victory of politics over science.’ “If the government wants to invest in hope for cures and promote ethically sound science,” Cardinal George said, “it should use our tax monies for research that everyone, at every stage of human development, can live with.” This new policy will open the door for expansion of embryonic stem cell research currently being conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. University policy adheres to federal guidelines with regard to ESCR, so with federal guidelines now expanding, the Medical center could expand its ESCR. Last Friday, however, I and other pro-life leaders attended the University Board of Regents meeting to urge them to prohibit any further expansion of ESCR at the Medical Center. It is critically important for Nebraskans to immediately contact our Regents and politely urge them to prohibit any expansion of ESCR. The Regents’ contact information is available online at www.nebraska.edu/board or by calling (402) 472-3906. I also urge Nebraskans to sign an online petition to the Regents at www.nceresearch.com. It is sponsored by the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research. The good news in this contentious debate is that science has found new technologies to pursue the exciting promise of stem cell research while preserving critical ethical boundaries, such as not killing human embryos. Sadly, at the very time when leading stem cell researchers are shifting their work toward these new technologies, our government will now divert our tax dollars toward older, unproven technologies that will destroy more embryos. Our University, however, should embrace these new technologies and reject any expansion of ESCR. This would give ALL Nebraskans something to cheer about and support. Life Insight 3-06-09 Abortion Packaging Hides Its Ugliness Abortion advocates have demonstrated great skill at re-packaging the violence and injustice of abortion in the more pleasant wrappings of “choice” and “reproductive health”. The dishonesty of these terms, however, is evident from a close examination of abortion practice in our nation. Both sides of the abortion debate agree that no woman wants to have an abortion. A variety of circumstances drive women to have abortions as a last resort, not as a free choice. A compelling body of research, as well as personal testimonies, validates this reality. Studies have revealed these reasons cited by women for having abortions: forced by mother, husband or boyfriend persuaded me, would have been kicked out, lack of support from society or family, no other option given, clinic persuaded me. One study found that 64 percent of women studied felt pressured by others to have their abortion. According to a report on “Forced Abortion in America” by the Elliot Institute (www.afterabortion.org), abortion-related coercion often involves direct or indirect threats of physical abuse from partners—or even parents—who don’t want the child. The report cites dozens of publicized cases where women were coerced to abort, where the coercion escalated to violence if the women refused to abort, and where the violence led to murder. The report points out the sad fact that the leading cause of death among pregnant women is murder. The characterization of abortion as “reproductive health” is equally absurd. First, killing an unborn child has nothing to do with anyone’s “healthcare”. Even in those extremely rare cases where a pregnancy endangers the mother’s health, the pregnancy can be managed, and even ended prematurely, without killing the unborn child. Second, more than 90 percent of abortions are done in free-standing facilities that do almost nothing but abortion. The provision of abortion in these facilities is more akin to a technician providing a service to a customer—in assembly-line fashion—than a physician providing professional medical care to a patient. There is no meaningful doctor-patient relationship in these facilities. Typically, the woman only sees the abortion doctor when he/she comes in the room to do the roughly 10-minute abortion. And unlike any other medical procedure, there is little, if any, individualized counseling or screening for risk factors done prior to abortion. This is particularly egregious given that even abortion advocates admit there are identifiable risk factors that increase a woman’s chance of having negative outcomes from the abortion. David Reardon, director of the Elliot Institute, points out that “allowing women to choose abortion without adequate screening from the physician, to develop an informed medical opinion for her individual case, is also contrary to the type of medical care envisioned by the Supreme Court” in Roe v. Wade and subsequent abortion rulings. Citing these rulings, Reardon shows that the “Court has consistently rejected the idea that women may have an unrestricted right to abortion” and has held that “a woman’s request for abortion is always subject to the review and recommendation of a physician, who bears ‘basic responsibility’ for making that recommendation.” “In describing the duties and obligations of the physician, the Court has been very clear,” Reardon says. For example, in Roe v. Wade, the Court said that “All these [family size, financial concerns, mental health, and physical health] are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.” And in Harris v. McRae (1980) the Court said the duty to evaluate this medical decision is especially weighty, because “[a]bortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.” This ugly reality of abortion practice, in contradiction to a woman’s choice and health, is why the Women’s Health Protection Act (LB 594), the ultrasound bill (LB 675), and the anti-Freedom of Choice Act resolution (LR 26) were introduced in our state Legislature. Now is a good time to contact your state senator and urge him/her to support these pro-life measures. Information on these bills and on how to contact your senator is available online at www.nebcathcon.org or by contacting my office. Life Insight 2-13-09 Three days after being sworn in as President, Barack Obama began what he promised during his campaign: to dismantle pro-life laws. The first law to go was the Mexico City Policy. This policy gets its name from an international population conference held in Mexico City in 1984. At this conference, the Reagan Administration announced that the United States would no longer contribute family planning funds to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) “which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” This policy was in place until 1992 when Bill Clinton rescinded it at the beginning of his presidency. It was then reinstated when George Bush became president. And now it is gone again. An effort in the Senate to immediately reinstate the Mexico City fell far short of passage (60 to 37) giving some indication of how pro-abortion our new Senate is. The Senate also rejected (59 to 39) an amendment allowing states to cover unborn children in the SCHIP program. SCHIP is a federal program that provides health insurance for low income children. On the up side, I am very pleased to say that both of our Senators (Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns) voted in favor of both pro-life policies and deserve our thanks. Sen. Nelson can be contacted at (202) 224-6551 or senator@bennelson.senate.gov. Sen. Johanns can be contacted at (202) 224-4224 or at www.johanns.senate.gov. Another policy that was expected to fall with an executive order from our new President was the Bush Administration’s restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Apparently, the President has decided instead to ask Congress to pass a law loosening these restrictions, which he will then sign into law. On the state legislative front, there are two major pro-life proposals that have been introduced for consideration. The first is LB 675, introduced by Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. This bill, which enhances our state’s current informed consent (before abortion) law, would give women the option to view an ultrasound of her baby before an abortion is done. The bill would also require that women be told before an abortion that “she cannot be forced or required by anyone to have an abortion” and that “she has the right to request a list…of health care providers…that offer to perform ultrasounds free of charge.” The second bill is LB 594, the Women’s Health Protection Act, introduced by Sen. Cap Dierks of Ewing. The purpose of this bill is “to provide additional protection to the life, health, and welfare of pregnant women by requiring a reasonable evaluation of risk factors associated with abortion…” The vast majority of abortions are done in freestanding abortion centers that have a very low standard of care for counseling and screening of women for such risk factors. As a result, women are suffering from avoidable physical and psychological complications that may have been prevented or minimized if the proper pre-abortion screening standards had been met. Specifically, LB 594 would clarify in statute the duty of physicians to screen for risk factors which place women at higher risk of physical or psychological complications of abortion. It restores the accountability of abortionists for making informed medical recommendations based on each woman’s individual risk profile. And it better protects women from undergoing coerced abortions, which is a major risk factor for severe post-abortion psychological problems. There is no doubt that the abortion industry will oppose both of these bills. But in doing so, it will severely undermine its claim to care about a pregnant woman’s “choice” or well-being. Anyone who has been present outside an abortion facility knows that its “escorts” will go to great lengths to prevent women from hearing the offers of help from pro-life volunteers. Likewise, they apparently don’t want a woman to see her unborn child on ultrasound. So much for “choice”. The abortion industry’s opposition to LB 594 will be equally unflattering. Even most abortion advocates acknowledge that there are risk factors that increase a woman’s likelihood of post-abortion complications. For them to oppose screening women for these risk factors raises the specter that they care more about costs and profits than the well-being of women. Watch here for further updates on this and other pro-life legislation or join my e-mail list by e-mailing me at gregschlepp@neb.rr.com. Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Life Insight 2-6-09 Over the last few weeks, Catholic parishes throughout Nebraska and the United States conducted the “Fight FOCA Postcard Campaign”. The purpose of this project is to send a clear message to Congress in opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) and any other measures that would eliminate existing pro-life policies. More than 100,000 postcards and educational fliers were distributed to parishes throughout Nebraska. Nationally, a breathtaking ten million (and counting) have been distributed. Initial parish reports indicate that the response of parishioners was overwhelmingly positive. To date, 46 parishes (about 12 percent of Nebraska’s parishes) have reported mailing more than 36,000 postcards to our Congressmen in Washington, D.C. These early reports give me confidence that most of Nebraska’s 100,000 postcards will find their way to our Congressmen’s offices. On Saturday, January 31, thousands of Nebraskans (media reports suggested as many as 5,000) gathered on the west steps of our State Capitol for the annual Walk for Life. This was one of the largest gatherings in the history of the Walk for Life. I suspect this was due in part to the new and serious threats to pro-life policies presented by our new President and Congress. Of course, the unseasonably warm weather may have helped too! I was amazed by the enthusiasm of the crowd. During the Walk several people expressed their deep concern about what our new Congress and President would do to undermine pro-life policies. And they said that this concern motivated them to get involved in the pro-life cause. These signs of a re-awakening among people concerned about the injustice of abortion are encouraging. Perhaps this new energy and activism is a silver lining to the many challenges the pro-life cause will face in the coming years. I am profoundly grateful to our three Bishops of Nebraska, our priests and our parish pro-life coordinators whose leadership made these recent pro-life activities such a success. As important as these actions are, however, our prayers and fasting are now needed to ask for our Lord’s grace and blessing that our actions will bear fruit. Our Lord told us in Matthew’s Gospel that “certain kinds of demons do not leave but by prayer and fasting” (Mt. 17:21). There should be no doubt that abortion is such a demon. So I ask all Catholics to now join me in prayer and fasting that our pro-life efforts will transform minds and hearts to respect and protect the dignity and rights of every human life. Any form of prayer and fasting is acceptable but here are some suggestions: a weekly Rosary (or extra decade), an extra Mass during the week, giving up a meal or dessert each week, making a weekly holy hour or doing the traditional Friday fast. I also offer for consideration the following (slightly edited) “Pro-Life Prayer for Our President and Public Officials” produced by my counterpart for the Diocese of Birmingham, AL (prayed daily or at least weekly): Lord God, Author of Life and Source of Eternal Life, move the hearts of all our public officials and especially our President, to fulfill their responsibilities worthily to all those entrusted to their care. Help them in their special leadership roles, to extend the mantle of protection to the most vulnerable, especially the defenseless unborn, whose lives are threatened with extermination by an indifferent society. Guide all public officials by your wisdom and grace to cease supporting any law that fails to protect the fundamental good that is human life itself, which is a gift from God. Change the hearts of those who compromise the call to protect and defend life. Help our nation to uphold the founding principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which made our nation great. Mary, our Mother, help us to bear witness to the Gospel of Life with our lives and our laws, through Christ, Our Lord. Amen. Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Life Insight 1-23-09 Our nation now has a new President. President Barack Obama campaigned on the theme of change, promising a new direction for our nation. It is hard not to have some appreciation for the significance of our nation electing the first black President, but I am deeply concerned about some of the change he has promised. Based on the President’s own voting record (in Illinois and Washington, D.C.) and public promises he made as a presidential candidate, the pro-life movement is bracing for what could be the most pro-abortion Administration in our nation’s history. To make matters worse, our new Congress has the most pro-abortion members since 1993. Abortion advocates wasted no time knocking on the door of our new President with its 55-page wish list, endorsed by dozens of pro-abortion groups. Among the items proposed in this document is the passage of the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA), public funding of abortions, the abandonment of longstanding pro-life provisions in appropriations bills and the complete defunding of abstinence-based education programs. “If the abortion industry succeeds,” says Deirdre McQuade from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro Life Office, “government will soon promote abortion as never before, making it a ‘fundamental’ right and a government entitlement.” It is possible that by the time you read this, our new President will have already begun dismantling existing pro-life policies with a series of Executive Orders. The President’s transition team declared some time ago that one of the first acts of this new Administration would be to overturn several current pro-life Executive Orders. This will likely mean an end to the Mexico City Policy that prevents forcing taxpayers to fund groups that perform or promote abortions in other countries. We’ll also likely see an end to President Bush’s policy restricting the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. Our new President also promised during his campaign that he would only appoint justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who will uphold Roe v. Wade. It is incredibly sad and ironic that our nation’s first black president, whose race was once excluded from full personhood under our Constitution, promises to ensure this same fate for another category of human beings: our unborn brothers and sisters. Michael Gerson spotlighted this irony with regard to modern American liberalism in his column honoring Fr. Richard John Neuhaus on the occasion of his death. Gerson points out that Fr. Neuhaus marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and “found the natural extension of those [civil rights] ideals in the pro-life movement. Both involved the same desire to expand the American circle of inclusion and protection.” Mr. Gerson said that Fr. Neuhaus “never ceased to ask the embarrassing question: How is it that contemporary American liberalism became indifferent to the weakest members of the human community?” It seems clear that our nation is at a watershed moment culturally. I shutter to think about our culture’s moral decline should our new President and Congress embrace and succeed in enacting the abortion industry’s wish list. In this year of St. Paul, we should ask for his intercession that our new President and Congress (and all elected officials) will embrace and defend the human rights of every member of our human family. Whatever may happen in the coming years, it is essential for us Christians to always remember that we work “from victory” not just “for victory”. Our Lord Jesus Christ has already won the victory over death. Our responsibility as Christians is to be faithful to the will of God (in good times and in bad) and to persevere in opposing evil at all times. Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Life Insight 1-16-09 “Jane Roe” Hits Nebraska Airwaves Roe v. Wade. If asked, most people would probably know that this was the landmark legal case with which the United States Supreme Court legalized abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for virtually any reason. Jane Roe is the fictitious name of the woman whose desire to have a legal abortion was used to challenge the law prohibiting abortion in Texas. Henry Wade was the district attorney in Dallas County (Texas) where “Jane Roe” lived. Most people, however, would probably not know that Norma McCorvey is the real name of “Jane Roe”. At the time of this legal challenge, Ms. McCorvey was a 21 year old woman with one child and was facing another unplanned pregnancy. Her situation was exploited by Sara Weddington, an attorney who was looking for a case to challenge Texas’ ban on abortion.
In reality, Ms. McCorvey never had an abortion and now has three daughters. However, for years following the Roe v. Wade ruling, Norma strongly supported legal abortion and even spent several years working at an abortion facility.
Thanks to His amazing and merciful grace, Norma came to know God and realized that her involvement in legalizing abortion was the biggest mistake of her life. A short time later, she was welcomed into the Catholic faith. Now she works generously to share her story of conversion with the hope of prompting many more conversions.
The story of Ms. McCorvey’s conversion was captured in a compelling 60 second television ad produced by Virtue Media. This ad has been running since Christmas on several major television stations in Nebraska. These stations are KETV (ABC) out of Omaha, KLKN (ABC) out of Lincoln, KCWL (CW), KTVG (Fox), KHAS (NBC) and KHGI (ABC NTV) all which cover the Grand Island, Hastings and Kearney region and beyond. The ad is also being run on KDUH (ABC) out of Scottsbluff.
To reach the widest audience possible, the ad is being featured on local and network news programs in the early morning, at noon, 5 pm, 6 pm, and 10 pm. It is also running on daytime soaps and talk shows as well as prime time and late night programming.
According to the advertising experts who bought the air time, a huge number of Nebraskans will see the Norma ad multiple times. Based on the popularity of the targeted programming and the number of times the ad will run, it is likely that households watching this programming will see the Norma ad an average of nine times. Funding for this ad came largely from donations by Catholic individuals and groups in the dioceses of Lincoln and Grand Island following a presentation of this Virtue Media project at Masses last fall. Parishes in the Archdiocese of Omaha will present the Virtue Media project at Masses this month.
The money raised in the Archdiocese will be used to purchase more air time to run the Norma ad and possibly other Virtue Media ads throughout the Archdiocese beginning in February. Since the Omaha television stations reach Lincoln and other communities beyond the borders of the Archdiocese, a large portion of eastern Nebraska will be exposed to these powerful ads at least for the next two or three months.
Please join me in praying that God will use these ads to touch and convert the minds and hearts of those who are contemplating abortion and those who provide or support this evil and violent act. If you’ve donated money toward these ads, may God bless you for your generosity. If you wish to make a donation toward these ads, simply send your check (payable to Virtue Media) to P.O. Box 2145, Gilbert, AZ 85299-2145. All donations from Nebraska will go toward buying more ads in Nebraska.
Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Life Insight 1-9-09 In the next several weeks, Nebraskans will have several opportunities to speak up and defend our defenseless and voiceless unborn brothers and sisters. January 22nd, 2009 marks the 36th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton) legalizing abortion through all nine months of pregnancy and for virtually any reason. Every year since 1973, pro-life individuals have marched in our nation’s Capital and in every state capital to protest these unjust rulings that have resulted in the deaths of roughly 50 million unborn human beings. This year hundreds of Nebraska students and adults will travel to Washington, D.C. to participate in the national March for Life on January 22nd. Here in Nebraska, the annual Walk for Life, sponsored by Nebraska Right to Life, will take place on Saturday, January 31. The Walk begins at 10:00 am on the West steps of the State Capitol in Lincoln and will be preceded by a 9:00 am Mass at St. Mary’s Church, just across the street from the Capitol. Keynote speaker for the Walk is Michael Clancy, the photographer who took the famous photo of an unborn child’s hand grasping the finger of the doctor who just performed prenatal surgery on him. On Friday night, January 30, a Pro Life Vigil Mass will be held at 8:00 pm also at St. Mary’s Church. Fr. Joseph Taphorn, Chancellor for the Archdiocese of Omaha will be the homilist. Preceding the Mass (from 5:00 to 7:00 pm) a fish fry will be held in the basement of St. Mary’s with the proceeds going to pro-life efforts. Following this Mass, all-night Eucharistic Adoration will take place to pray for an end to the injustice of abortion and for the healing of all post-abortive women and men. Another major opportunity to be the voice of the voiceless will occur on or around the weekend of January 24/25. On that weekend the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is sponsoring a “Fight FOCA Postcard Campaign” in parishes throughout the nation. The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is an extremely radical proposal that would establish abortion as a fundamental right and entitlement in federal law. It is a priority of the abortion industry and is strongly supported by President-elect Barack Obama. All parishes in Nebraska will be receiving postcards and educational fliers along with encouragement to participate by the Bishops of Nebraska. As was the case the last time FOCA was raised in Congress (1990s), a massive demonstration of public opposition through a postcard campaign will, I’m confident, have a decisive impact on preventing its passage. Some have tried to downplay FOCA or its likelihood of being introduced or adopted by Congress. This view is misguided. Congress could try to dismantle existing pro-life policies and laws wholesale through FOCA or they could try to eliminate them one at a time. In any event, it is critical that pro-life Americans send a strong and immediate message against such efforts to undermine existing pro-life policies. Another misconception about this postcard campaign is that it isn’t necessary in Nebraska because our two senators and three representatives are all pro-life. It is true that we can count on our delegation to oppose FOCA and most likely all other efforts to undermine pro-life policies. However, it is still very important to let them know that their pro-life views are supported by a large number of Nebraskans. Another important effect of our participation in this campaign is its cumulative national impact. The last time the Church sponsored an anti-FOCA postcard campaign there were so many cards sent to Congress that the Congressional Post Office had to shut down. This got the attention of Congress and played a key role in thwarting FOCA. Finally, our participation in this national campaign will have a ripple effect in our own State Legislature. The results of this campaign will be communicated to our state legislators so they are aware of the magnitude of pro-life support in Nebraska as they deliberate on pro-life legislation this session. More information on the Nebraska Walk for Life and the anti-FOCA postcard campaign is available online at www.nebcathcon.org. Another opportunity in January to contribute to the pro-life cause is the Knights of Columbus One Rose One Life project. On or around the weekend of January 24/25, the Knights will be distributing pro-life prayer cards and collecting donations at Masses to help fund pro-life activities in Nebraska. My office is a major recipient of these funds as are numerous other pro-life organizations and projects. Please give generously to this collection. Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index | Life Insight 1-2-09 Holy Families Essential to Culture of Life One of the questions I am often asked is “what can I do to help the pro-life cause?” Usually, those who ask this question are looking for some concrete form of activism they can embrace to fight abortion. Although I try to provide such concrete suggestions, I also challenge them to look at how they are living out their own vocation. The deepest root of the culture of death is alienation from God, Pope John Paul II tells us in Evangelium Vitae (EV). This means that the most important pro-life activity, whether we are clergy or laity, single or married, is to grow in our relationship with our Lord and to help others do the same. The depth of our understanding and regard for the purpose and dignity of human life is in direct proportion to the depth of our understanding and regard for the God in Whose image and likeness human life was made. In the shadows of the Feast of the Holy Family, I focus here on the particular role of the family in building a culture of life. John Paul II said in EV (#92) that the family “is truly ‘the sanctuary of life: the place in which life—the gift of God—can be properly welcomed and protected against the many attacks to which it is exposed and can develop in accordance with what constitutes authentic human growth. Consequently, the role of the family in building a culture of life is decisive and irreplaceable.” So the most critical contribution a married couple can make to the pro-life cause is to work at forming a healthy and holy marriage. Holy marriages are the foundation to forming “domestic churches” within which the family is formed and “summoned to proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of Life” (EV #92). Married couples are “called to be givers of life…In giving origin to a new life, parents recognize that the child, ‘as the fruit of their mutual gift of love, is in turn a gift for both of them, a gift which flows from them.’” But John Paul II says that it “is above all in raising children that the family fulfills its mission to proclaim the Gospel of life.” “By word and example, in the daily round of relations and choices, and through concrete actions and signs, parents lead their children to authentic freedom, actualized in the sincere gift of self, and they cultivate in them respect for others, a sense of justice, cordial openness, dialogue, generous service, solidarity…In raising children, Christian parents must be concerned about their children’s faith and help them to fulfill the vocation God has given them” (EV #92). Therefore, in addition to working for holy marriages, parents can make a significant contribution to a culture of life by raising virtuous children who know and love our Lord in an intimate way. Virtuous and faith-filled children will have a healthier understanding of the dignity of human life and its meaning. John Paul II also urges families to give special attention to the elderly by forming a “sort of ‘covenant’ between the generations, in fidelity to the divine commandment to honor one’s father and mother. In this way parents in their later years can receive from their children the acceptance and solidarity which they themselves gave to their children when they brought them into the world.” “But there is more,” John Paul says. “The elderly are not only to be considered the object of our concern, closeness and service. They themselves have a valuable contribution to make to the Gospel of life. Thanks to the rich treasury of experiences they have acquired through the years, the elderly can and must be sources of wisdom and witnesses of hope and love.” To be certain, forming holy
marriages and families takes much prayer, sacrifice and effort. The Holy Family
provides a model and source of strength for all Christian families. A custom in
my family is to complete the prayer before meals with this prayer: “Jesus, Mary,
and Joseph, help us to be a holy family.” As we ask the Holy Family for help we
should take solace in the fact that the Holy Family experienced and understands
all the struggles of family life. Back to Top | Past Columns | Current Column Index |
|
Nebraska Catholic
Conference