|
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
Parent Advocate 2009
|
Hope for Better Conditions at Adjournment 01-15-10 Hope for Better Conditions at Adjournment 01-15-10 One thing Nebraskans might hope to count on when the 101st Nebraska Legislature concludes its second regular session in mid-April is that there won’t be 20-plus inches of snow on the ground and wind chills well below zero. Goodness. Not that the Legislature is responsible for the weather, of course, but no Nebraskan needs reminding that those were the conditions when the 49 citizen legislators began their 2010 lawmaking journey last week at the State Capitol. Welcome back, solons. Of course it wasn’t that long ago—early November—when the Governor called you into special session to reduce the current biennium’s spending plan. This regular session is the second of the two conducted by each Legislature and is generally limited by law to no more than 60 working days. This is the part when legislators “hit the floor running,” because legislative bills that were not passed or indefinitely postponed (killed) last year are still available for action. So, after three transition days of little more than new bill introductions, floor debate began last Monday. From January 19 through March 1—tentatively—the full Legislature will meet in the mornings and its committees will conduct hearings on the new bills in the afternoons. The tentatively scheduled 60th day, for adjournment sine die, is April 14. Remember, less snow and warmer temperatures. It is important for Nebraskans to stay informed about the myriad of public policy debates and decisions that will be taking place at the State Capitol over the next 13 weeks. An excellent starter source is the Legislature’s official website, www.nebraskalegislature.gov. Also (in addition to this column, of course), there’s Unicameral Update, which is available both online and in hard copy. For the 34th consecutive year, we’ll be using the space graciously provided by the diocesan newspapers to update and comment on issues of interest and concern for the Nebraska Catholic Conference, which is the public-policy agency operated jointly and cooperatively by the three dioceses in Nebraska, under the direction of the Diocesan Bishops. Our website is www.nebcathcon.org. Our phone number is 402-477-7517. Explanation Would Help Address Disappointment The amendatory wording that Senator Ben Nelson and his staff “stumbled onto”—his description of the circumstances—for prohibiting federal-government funding of elective abortions and maintaining longstanding policy (e.g., the Hyde Amendment), thus enabling him, at least in substantial part, to provide the key vote for Senate passage of health-care-reform legislation, is imprecise, troubling and controversial. To his credit, Senator Nelson took a strong stand—some say courageous—that expanding government funding of abortion should not be part of health care reform. He pledged that any legislation that violated this principle and precedent would not get his vote. Nonetheless, he ended his resistance and thereupon brought an end to an important segment of the process, because, apparently, he became convinced and confident that adoption of the wording he stumbled onto fulfills his objective and his pledge. But does it? Skepticism, doubt and concern, as well as disappointment, are appropriate pro life responses. Does it truly maintain the status quo or is it an “accounting gimmick” and an abortion-funding mandate as some have analyzed? From a pro life perspective, it is not nearly as sound as the Stupak amendment in the House of Representatives’ bill. But is it better, equal to, or worse than the Nelson-Casey-Hatch amendment that was defeated earlier in the process? That’s a debatable topic. Apparently, Senator Nelson determined that it was not worse. One thing is certain, Senator Nelson’s last amendment doesn’t fulfill the objective he consistently asserted and the pledge he consistently made just because he says it does. It isn’t better than or even equal to the status quo just because he says it is. He bears a responsibility to thoroughly and clearly explain how his amendment does not expand federal funding for abortion. Otherwise, doubt, concern and disappointment will persist. And finally…. There’s a note left over from the Unicameral’s special session on budget cutting. Because a big part of the mainline budget consists of government operations, at least one representative of every agency, usually the director appeared before the Appropriations Committee to describe the anticipated impact of an across-the-board budget cut and in some instances, targeted, program-specific cuts as well. The typical description was that cuts were understandable, acceptable and doable. But almost as typically, caveats and some reluctance were expressed. One of the agency representatives, who appeared late in the process, near the end of the long list of agency hearings, told committee members at the onset of his testimony that he had observed how common it was for those appearing before the committee to testify, “our agency supports the proposed cuts, but….” “I too have a little but,” he further testified. |
Nebraska Catholic
Conference